Transgenderism

[crimsonedge11]

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.

It is not valid because you make the assumption that human sexuality is limited to only 2 states; Heterosexual, and Homosexual. Even if you were to accept that sexuality and sex are two different things and that each sex has a different way of expressing that sexuality, that only accounts for 4 states of sexuality; Heterosexual Male, Homosexual Male, Heterosexual Female and Homosexual Female. The problem is that this closed view does not account for a person's gender identity. A gender identity, in overly simplified terms is that bit of being "a woman trapped in a man's body", in less simplified terms, it is the social identity which one assumes within society according to both natural genetic and psychological affinities as well as environmental factors. This means that even the definition of Homosexual verses Heterosexual is not always so clear since you may have a Male who identifies as a Woman, but who is attracted to Women, or a Female who identifies as a Man, but is attracted to Females. Just because one identifies a certain way, or has their sex changed does not mean that they are doing it just to be sexually compatible with the opposite sex. In fairness, this is something which most people cannot wrap their heads around, and which popular culture seems to only get wrong again and again, and again. There are atleast 2 more generally accepted levels of classification in addition to the 3 that were already mentioned, as well as internal varieties/groupings and an allotment for the wide multitude of "fetishes", but getting into that may go well beyond the point and would probably cause damage to most who might try following what is written. So it's best to keep things generic and just accept that there is more which is implied and hopefully understood by those in the know.

 

If someone were born with an extra arm jutting out of their back, they would get it removed as a matter of normal course, but as soon as it becomes something others may not easily understand, it becomes a choice? Sexual reassignment surgery is not a choice any more than wanting to have a grotesque extra appendage removed from your body is a choice. It is surgery that someone often feels that they have to do in order to feel like both who they are, and who they want to be in society.

 

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.

You aren't being hateful, but your comments are. They clearly show the more typical, ill informed, highly judgmental view of someone who doesn't know the first thing about what they are talking about, but assumes that they not only have it all figured out, but that they're absolutely right.

 

People that are transgender are obviously homosexual, and I do believe people are born that way,

 

That is hateful rhetoric... That is also VERY incorrect. One does not equal the other.

 

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.

I do see the bigger picture... Try looking outside the bible belt of the US sometime. Progress is being made, but most of it isn't obvious to those who aren't aware of the multitude of sociological, philosophical, and political shifts which are taking effect around the world. The "20 to 30" years attitude only serves to keep pushing back the social reforms which are necessary to meet the growing freedoms of individuals. It is easy to say "maybe in 20-30 years you people will be accepted" when you aren't part of that group or don't know anyone in it. For those in that group, tomorrow is too far away. 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, but you are right with one thing; pushing the issue to the side doesn't solve anything either. 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.

 

As for total acceptance, yeah... that won't happen, ever. Despite the fact that most religions agree on the same basic premises, and despite the fact that within those religions there are many agreements on more broader beliefs, people still use the differences are reason enough for separation and conflict... And we've been dealing with that, in one form or another, one for the better part of human history. But, in the same sense, a closed minded view of others beliefs only serves to make things worse for everyone. Thankfully a fair amount of the research being done these days is without bias, and data is being leaked slowly enough to the public that there isn't much chance of a backlash by those who simply don't want to understand.

 

We disagree on whether getting a surgery to alter the sexual aspects of your body is a choice or not. I do believe it is a choice. And people who are transgender, wish to behave like the opposite sex, in hopes to attract someone of the same sex, which IS homosexual, any way you look at it.

 

And why bring religion into this? It was in fact, the majority of the States in the Union, with exception to the most liberal states that voted to define marriage as between man and a woman. I was making that point to prove that society isn't ready to accept this just yet.

 

And when you speak of freedoms, that refers to institutional discrimination by the state, and by employers, which IS illegal, but people will always have freedom of association to choose who they personally associate with and what kind of behavior they deem appropriate. It is not up to the government to decide who society has to accept as normal.

[RebelOConner]

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.

 

World health organization no longer consider transgenderism as a mental disorder. And some scientists think it's an hormonal modification that happens during the pregancy. but the subject is still taboo, so few people want to think about and, i bet, the most prefer to think about a mental disorder.

[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?

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.

 

Wow, you are making some very sweeping assumptions. I think you are defining mutual agreement as "whoever agrees with me". You are effectively refusing to acknowledge that anyone can sincerely hold opinions (or for that matter, religious beliefs)that are contrary to what happens to be politically correct, without being filled with hatred. And as for the militancy of the "out and proud" movement, legal action can become a militant tool when it is used to hound people out of their jobs or out of business. You are asking for one set of people to be allowed to live the way that they wish to without harassment, yet wishing to deny that right to others just because you do not agree with them.

 

And as for this, BlackBaron2

 

"(pardon the oversimplification, but it is the only language that those spoonfed by Faux News or the Daily Mail understand)"

 

Condescension and implying that people are stupid is not debating,it is just RUDE.

 

For the record, before the bile starts, I read The Times, The Torygraph and the Daily Mail, I do avoid the Grauniad and I am a practicing Roman Catholic (at a church where there are people of every sexual orientation). Shortly before you hang me from the nearest lamp post, you should also be aware that I work in social welfare, happen to be the office Equality and Diversity representative, and have to challenge bigoted behaviours from our clients every day.

[phoneyLogic]

World health organization no longer consider transgenderism as a mental disorder. And some scientists think it's an hormonal modification that happens during the pregancy. but the subject is still taboo, so few people want to think about and, i bet, the most prefer to think about a mental disorder.

Yes, this would most likely lead into a mental violence. It's hard to speculate the reasons of that disorder while keeping other considerations out of the discussion. They obvisually can't therapy it anyway.

[Vagrant0]

*sigh* and now I have to lock this thread because some people can't separate the issue from the semantics of politics and religious bickering... Congratulations, you killed another thread with the side comments and mob mentality. I don't deny partial responsibility for drawing a relationship... but it was your decision to bring everything else into it.

 

 

 

Locked

 

 

*edit* And for the record...

The only reason I am here, is I saw a complete lack of an objective opinion on this matter. You can't have a debate without an objective opinion.

I do believe it is a choice. And people who are transgender, wish to behave like the opposite sex, in hopes to attract someone of the same sex, which IS homosexual, any way you look at it.

This is how bigots remain bigots. You don't recognize the severe and inherent flaws in their reasoning, don't pay attention to what they are basing that reasoning on, and you attack anyone who tries to say otherwise. Yay for mob justice.