|
1001 YEARS KESPAJAIL22272 Posts
On March 15 2013 04:14 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2013 11:35 StayPhrosty wrote:On March 13 2013 09:19 FabledIntegral wrote:On March 13 2013 08:49 Mohdoo wrote:On March 13 2013 04:45 Sawajiri wrote:On March 12 2013 18:15 oneofthem wrote:On March 12 2013 09:10 FabledIntegral wrote:On March 11 2013 23:29 Grumbels wrote:On March 11 2013 19:13 Kickboxer wrote:
As a moderately tolerant person (has gay acquaintances but not close friends, never ridicules gay people but would be horrified if future child turns out to be one) I think the main problem of the LGBT movement in western countries is their insistence on being perceived as "normal" as opposed to a group of people with a serious albeit 100% harmless defect.
What if you would apply the same logic to another sensitive issue: "I would never ridicule black people, but I'd be horrified if my future child would turn out to be one." (yes, this is a joke :p) I don't really think there's anything wrong with the statement. I would also much prefer much children to be heterosexual, if I could somehow have a choice. Just as I'd prefer my children to be born with 10 fingers. Not something they can control, and lack of that trait won't make me love them any less, but I'd still prefer it. I'd also prefer my children to be social, attractive, etc. this is a pretty bad line to take though, because you seem to be equating homosexuality with 1. severe defect (lack of fingers) 2. a defective life in some way (lack of social life) 1 is clearly undefendable... 2. is a bit better, but still, there is no reason why a gay person cannot have a fulfilling and perfect life. I hear you, but I also understand what the person above you wrote. Obviously homosexuality should not be equated with crime or anything of the sort, but I think it's only natural for a person to prefer heterosexual children, if they had a choice. It's simply about wanting to position your child where it would be unlikely to be discriminated against and face hardships due to something they cannot help. Heterosexuality is a privilege and boosts the likelihood of having a more struggle-free life. Of course, it should not be that way -- ideally, having a sexuality other than hetero should not in any way or form make it harder for the average person to succeed. As long as it's the reality, though, it's not necessarily bigoted for someone to prefer having heterosexual children, so long as they would also love and support a non-heterosexual child equally should he or she turn out to identify as such. I feel the same and see no shame in it. Hoping your child doesn't go through what gays go through is not being discriminatory. While that's a significant part, it's also simply partly selfish. Simply for me. Partially because I see some value in biological grandchildren. I'm not exactly sure why, it might just be a biological trait. It's preference and it's not dealbreaking, just as I'd prefer a nonsterile child over a sterile one. But even all that aside, there's something beyond the discrimination and grandchild potential in me that would simply *prefer* a heterosexual child. I don't think I can help the feeling. I'm not even saying it's "right." I totally understand you position and I don't think you're somehow "wrong" to think that (and I assume many people would share your viewpoint) but I slightly disagree personally. From my own perspective, the bond that I could form with my child if it were gay I think would be a benefit, as well as the likely crowd that my child would associate with. The way I see it, I would not want my child to grow up poor in a bad area of town type atmosphere regardless of their sexuality. If they were gay though, I would think that they would likely grow up being much more informed about various social issues, and would likely make friends with much more accepting people. Obviously no parent wants their child to be bullied, so I think that taking my kids to a school that deals better with bullying and whatnot would be a top priority and thus would partially nullify their danger if they were gay. I can also totally understand wanting to pass on your own genes, but for me I would probably want 3 children or so, so not only would it be highly unlikely that they all gay, but I would also be accounting for if any one of them were to die at a young age. I wouldn't say I have a "preference" one way or another as to my child's gender or sexual preference, as I can definitely see both positives and negatives for any situation. I mean, I could see how someone might prefer a male child over a female one, but I also think that the benefits outweigh any slight differences in the problems they might encounter in life (and I would add that the country I live in definitely makes an impact on my relative neutrality here. I admit I would have a very different viewpoint if I were living in a less accepting society/income level). Hmmm you're right. Multiple children would definitely cause less of an issue on the gene front as long as the rest are hetero. In that case, I'm not sure I would mind as much (wow my viewpoint changing from someone else's Internet post?! Even if it was pointing out the obvious...).
Trans people want to have matching biology and sexuality (that's why they do hormone therapy and SRS). Why would it be wrong to want your kids to already have matching biology and sexuality and not have to go through a difficult life? I think it is completely fine to want your kids to have the life that they really want. This argument only applies to trans though, because I understand there are some homosexuals who prefer to be biologically male but still be into dudes. Not sure what their stance would be on being born female if they had the choice.
|
On March 15 2013 12:05 lichter wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2013 04:14 FabledIntegral wrote:On March 14 2013 11:35 StayPhrosty wrote:On March 13 2013 09:19 FabledIntegral wrote:On March 13 2013 08:49 Mohdoo wrote:On March 13 2013 04:45 Sawajiri wrote:On March 12 2013 18:15 oneofthem wrote:On March 12 2013 09:10 FabledIntegral wrote:On March 11 2013 23:29 Grumbels wrote:On March 11 2013 19:13 Kickboxer wrote:
As a moderately tolerant person (has gay acquaintances but not close friends, never ridicules gay people but would be horrified if future child turns out to be one) I think the main problem of the LGBT movement in western countries is their insistence on being perceived as "normal" as opposed to a group of people with a serious albeit 100% harmless defect.
What if you would apply the same logic to another sensitive issue: "I would never ridicule black people, but I'd be horrified if my future child would turn out to be one." (yes, this is a joke :p) I don't really think there's anything wrong with the statement. I would also much prefer much children to be heterosexual, if I could somehow have a choice. Just as I'd prefer my children to be born with 10 fingers. Not something they can control, and lack of that trait won't make me love them any less, but I'd still prefer it. I'd also prefer my children to be social, attractive, etc. this is a pretty bad line to take though, because you seem to be equating homosexuality with 1. severe defect (lack of fingers) 2. a defective life in some way (lack of social life) 1 is clearly undefendable... 2. is a bit better, but still, there is no reason why a gay person cannot have a fulfilling and perfect life. I hear you, but I also understand what the person above you wrote. Obviously homosexuality should not be equated with crime or anything of the sort, but I think it's only natural for a person to prefer heterosexual children, if they had a choice. It's simply about wanting to position your child where it would be unlikely to be discriminated against and face hardships due to something they cannot help. Heterosexuality is a privilege and boosts the likelihood of having a more struggle-free life. Of course, it should not be that way -- ideally, having a sexuality other than hetero should not in any way or form make it harder for the average person to succeed. As long as it's the reality, though, it's not necessarily bigoted for someone to prefer having heterosexual children, so long as they would also love and support a non-heterosexual child equally should he or she turn out to identify as such. I feel the same and see no shame in it. Hoping your child doesn't go through what gays go through is not being discriminatory. While that's a significant part, it's also simply partly selfish. Simply for me. Partially because I see some value in biological grandchildren. I'm not exactly sure why, it might just be a biological trait. It's preference and it's not dealbreaking, just as I'd prefer a nonsterile child over a sterile one. But even all that aside, there's something beyond the discrimination and grandchild potential in me that would simply *prefer* a heterosexual child. I don't think I can help the feeling. I'm not even saying it's "right." I totally understand you position and I don't think you're somehow "wrong" to think that (and I assume many people would share your viewpoint) but I slightly disagree personally. From my own perspective, the bond that I could form with my child if it were gay I think would be a benefit, as well as the likely crowd that my child would associate with. The way I see it, I would not want my child to grow up poor in a bad area of town type atmosphere regardless of their sexuality. If they were gay though, I would think that they would likely grow up being much more informed about various social issues, and would likely make friends with much more accepting people. Obviously no parent wants their child to be bullied, so I think that taking my kids to a school that deals better with bullying and whatnot would be a top priority and thus would partially nullify their danger if they were gay. I can also totally understand wanting to pass on your own genes, but for me I would probably want 3 children or so, so not only would it be highly unlikely that they all gay, but I would also be accounting for if any one of them were to die at a young age. I wouldn't say I have a "preference" one way or another as to my child's gender or sexual preference, as I can definitely see both positives and negatives for any situation. I mean, I could see how someone might prefer a male child over a female one, but I also think that the benefits outweigh any slight differences in the problems they might encounter in life (and I would add that the country I live in definitely makes an impact on my relative neutrality here. I admit I would have a very different viewpoint if I were living in a less accepting society/income level). Hmmm you're right. Multiple children would definitely cause less of an issue on the gene front as long as the rest are hetero. In that case, I'm not sure I would mind as much (wow my viewpoint changing from someone else's Internet post?! Even if it was pointing out the obvious...). Trans people want to have matching biology and sexuality (that's why they do hormone therapy and SRS). Why would it be wrong to want your kids to already have matching biology and sexuality and not have to go through a difficult life? I think it is completely fine to want your kids to have the life that they really want. This argument only applies to trans though, because I understand there are some homosexuals who prefer to be biologically male but still be into dudes. Not sure what their stance would be on being born female if they had the choice.
I suspect that this isn't really about wanting your kids to not have a difficult life, and more about wanting to live through your kids. It seems to me that there is an overarching story that we are taught to adopt from as early as the age of five, which is that we live a particular life that is decided by our parents (grow up, goto college, get a good job - hopefully the same one your dad did), get married, have kids, and repeat this process. And damnit, my biological kid better be just like me. And by just like me, I mean he needs to share my religion, my values, my work ethic, and hopefully the same career path. And he should be straight and cisgendered as well, of course.
It occurs to me, though, that this is rather selfish. To be putting expectations upon children before they're even old enough to solve basic math. And it's "disguised" as wanting them to have an "easier" life.
|
On March 15 2013 12:10 shinosai wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2013 12:05 lichter wrote:On March 15 2013 04:14 FabledIntegral wrote:On March 14 2013 11:35 StayPhrosty wrote:On March 13 2013 09:19 FabledIntegral wrote:On March 13 2013 08:49 Mohdoo wrote:On March 13 2013 04:45 Sawajiri wrote:On March 12 2013 18:15 oneofthem wrote:On March 12 2013 09:10 FabledIntegral wrote:On March 11 2013 23:29 Grumbels wrote:
[quote]
What if you would apply the same logic to another sensitive issue: "I would never ridicule black people, but I'd be horrified if my future child would turn out to be one." (yes, this is a joke :p) I don't really think there's anything wrong with the statement. I would also much prefer much children to be heterosexual, if I could somehow have a choice. Just as I'd prefer my children to be born with 10 fingers. Not something they can control, and lack of that trait won't make me love them any less, but I'd still prefer it. I'd also prefer my children to be social, attractive, etc. this is a pretty bad line to take though, because you seem to be equating homosexuality with 1. severe defect (lack of fingers) 2. a defective life in some way (lack of social life) 1 is clearly undefendable... 2. is a bit better, but still, there is no reason why a gay person cannot have a fulfilling and perfect life. I hear you, but I also understand what the person above you wrote. Obviously homosexuality should not be equated with crime or anything of the sort, but I think it's only natural for a person to prefer heterosexual children, if they had a choice. It's simply about wanting to position your child where it would be unlikely to be discriminated against and face hardships due to something they cannot help. Heterosexuality is a privilege and boosts the likelihood of having a more struggle-free life. Of course, it should not be that way -- ideally, having a sexuality other than hetero should not in any way or form make it harder for the average person to succeed. As long as it's the reality, though, it's not necessarily bigoted for someone to prefer having heterosexual children, so long as they would also love and support a non-heterosexual child equally should he or she turn out to identify as such. I feel the same and see no shame in it. Hoping your child doesn't go through what gays go through is not being discriminatory. While that's a significant part, it's also simply partly selfish. Simply for me. Partially because I see some value in biological grandchildren. I'm not exactly sure why, it might just be a biological trait. It's preference and it's not dealbreaking, just as I'd prefer a nonsterile child over a sterile one. But even all that aside, there's something beyond the discrimination and grandchild potential in me that would simply *prefer* a heterosexual child. I don't think I can help the feeling. I'm not even saying it's "right." I totally understand you position and I don't think you're somehow "wrong" to think that (and I assume many people would share your viewpoint) but I slightly disagree personally. From my own perspective, the bond that I could form with my child if it were gay I think would be a benefit, as well as the likely crowd that my child would associate with. The way I see it, I would not want my child to grow up poor in a bad area of town type atmosphere regardless of their sexuality. If they were gay though, I would think that they would likely grow up being much more informed about various social issues, and would likely make friends with much more accepting people. Obviously no parent wants their child to be bullied, so I think that taking my kids to a school that deals better with bullying and whatnot would be a top priority and thus would partially nullify their danger if they were gay. I can also totally understand wanting to pass on your own genes, but for me I would probably want 3 children or so, so not only would it be highly unlikely that they all gay, but I would also be accounting for if any one of them were to die at a young age. I wouldn't say I have a "preference" one way or another as to my child's gender or sexual preference, as I can definitely see both positives and negatives for any situation. I mean, I could see how someone might prefer a male child over a female one, but I also think that the benefits outweigh any slight differences in the problems they might encounter in life (and I would add that the country I live in definitely makes an impact on my relative neutrality here. I admit I would have a very different viewpoint if I were living in a less accepting society/income level). Hmmm you're right. Multiple children would definitely cause less of an issue on the gene front as long as the rest are hetero. In that case, I'm not sure I would mind as much (wow my viewpoint changing from someone else's Internet post?! Even if it was pointing out the obvious...). Trans people want to have matching biology and sexuality (that's why they do hormone therapy and SRS). Why would it be wrong to want your kids to already have matching biology and sexuality and not have to go through a difficult life? I think it is completely fine to want your kids to have the life that they really want. This argument only applies to trans though, because I understand there are some homosexuals who prefer to be biologically male but still be into dudes. Not sure what their stance would be on being born female if they had the choice. I suspect that this isn't really about wanting your kids to not have a difficult life, and more about wanting to live through your kids. It seems to me that there is an overarching story that we are taught to adopt from as early as the age of five, which is that we live a particular life that is decided by our parents (grow up, goto college, get a good job - hopefully the same one your dad did), get married, have kids, and repeat this process. And damnit, my biological kid better be just like me. And by just like me, I mean he needs to share my religion, my values, my work ethic, and hopefully the same career path. And he should be straight and cisgendered as well, of course. It occurs to me, though, that this is rather selfish. To be putting expectations upon children before they're even old enough to solve basic math. And it's "disguised" as wanting them to have an "easier" life.
The general thought process is simply wanting your children to surpass yourself.... being identical to yourself.... I'm not as familiar with that.
|
1001 YEARS KESPAJAIL22272 Posts
On March 15 2013 12:10 shinosai wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2013 12:05 lichter wrote:On March 15 2013 04:14 FabledIntegral wrote:On March 14 2013 11:35 StayPhrosty wrote:On March 13 2013 09:19 FabledIntegral wrote:On March 13 2013 08:49 Mohdoo wrote:On March 13 2013 04:45 Sawajiri wrote:On March 12 2013 18:15 oneofthem wrote:On March 12 2013 09:10 FabledIntegral wrote:On March 11 2013 23:29 Grumbels wrote:
[quote]
What if you would apply the same logic to another sensitive issue: "I would never ridicule black people, but I'd be horrified if my future child would turn out to be one." (yes, this is a joke :p) I don't really think there's anything wrong with the statement. I would also much prefer much children to be heterosexual, if I could somehow have a choice. Just as I'd prefer my children to be born with 10 fingers. Not something they can control, and lack of that trait won't make me love them any less, but I'd still prefer it. I'd also prefer my children to be social, attractive, etc. this is a pretty bad line to take though, because you seem to be equating homosexuality with 1. severe defect (lack of fingers) 2. a defective life in some way (lack of social life) 1 is clearly undefendable... 2. is a bit better, but still, there is no reason why a gay person cannot have a fulfilling and perfect life. I hear you, but I also understand what the person above you wrote. Obviously homosexuality should not be equated with crime or anything of the sort, but I think it's only natural for a person to prefer heterosexual children, if they had a choice. It's simply about wanting to position your child where it would be unlikely to be discriminated against and face hardships due to something they cannot help. Heterosexuality is a privilege and boosts the likelihood of having a more struggle-free life. Of course, it should not be that way -- ideally, having a sexuality other than hetero should not in any way or form make it harder for the average person to succeed. As long as it's the reality, though, it's not necessarily bigoted for someone to prefer having heterosexual children, so long as they would also love and support a non-heterosexual child equally should he or she turn out to identify as such. I feel the same and see no shame in it. Hoping your child doesn't go through what gays go through is not being discriminatory. While that's a significant part, it's also simply partly selfish. Simply for me. Partially because I see some value in biological grandchildren. I'm not exactly sure why, it might just be a biological trait. It's preference and it's not dealbreaking, just as I'd prefer a nonsterile child over a sterile one. But even all that aside, there's something beyond the discrimination and grandchild potential in me that would simply *prefer* a heterosexual child. I don't think I can help the feeling. I'm not even saying it's "right." I totally understand you position and I don't think you're somehow "wrong" to think that (and I assume many people would share your viewpoint) but I slightly disagree personally. From my own perspective, the bond that I could form with my child if it were gay I think would be a benefit, as well as the likely crowd that my child would associate with. The way I see it, I would not want my child to grow up poor in a bad area of town type atmosphere regardless of their sexuality. If they were gay though, I would think that they would likely grow up being much more informed about various social issues, and would likely make friends with much more accepting people. Obviously no parent wants their child to be bullied, so I think that taking my kids to a school that deals better with bullying and whatnot would be a top priority and thus would partially nullify their danger if they were gay. I can also totally understand wanting to pass on your own genes, but for me I would probably want 3 children or so, so not only would it be highly unlikely that they all gay, but I would also be accounting for if any one of them were to die at a young age. I wouldn't say I have a "preference" one way or another as to my child's gender or sexual preference, as I can definitely see both positives and negatives for any situation. I mean, I could see how someone might prefer a male child over a female one, but I also think that the benefits outweigh any slight differences in the problems they might encounter in life (and I would add that the country I live in definitely makes an impact on my relative neutrality here. I admit I would have a very different viewpoint if I were living in a less accepting society/income level). Hmmm you're right. Multiple children would definitely cause less of an issue on the gene front as long as the rest are hetero. In that case, I'm not sure I would mind as much (wow my viewpoint changing from someone else's Internet post?! Even if it was pointing out the obvious...). Trans people want to have matching biology and sexuality (that's why they do hormone therapy and SRS). Why would it be wrong to want your kids to already have matching biology and sexuality and not have to go through a difficult life? I think it is completely fine to want your kids to have the life that they really want. This argument only applies to trans though, because I understand there are some homosexuals who prefer to be biologically male but still be into dudes. Not sure what their stance would be on being born female if they had the choice. I suspect that this isn't really about wanting your kids to not have a difficult life, and more about wanting to live through your kids. It seems to me that there is an overarching story that we are taught to adopt from as early as the age of five, which is that we live a particular life that is decided by our parents (grow up, goto college, get a good job - hopefully the same one your dad did), get married, have kids, and repeat this process. And damnit, my biological kid better be just like me. And by just like me, I mean he needs to share my religion, my values, my work ethic, and hopefully the same career path. And he should be straight and cisgendered as well, of course. It occurs to me, though, that this is rather selfish. To be putting expectations upon children before they're even old enough to solve basic math. And it's "disguised" as wanting them to have an "easier" life.
I'm not going to argue that it isn't selfish. It is. I want my children to have my eyes, to have her nose, to have my smarts, to have our same culture and traditions. I find it hard to imagine a parent (of natural born children) that does not wish this. Is it really so bad? That's why I am so impressed with how much love people who adopt children, love them as their own, and let them choose who they want to be, have to be able to do that.
|
On March 15 2013 11:59 shinosai wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2013 11:55 OsoVega wrote:On March 15 2013 11:37 Cyro wrote: trans people have it pretty shit. Probably why the suicide rate is like 25-50%. If so many people were not so self centered and inconsiderate, completely unable to empathize outside of their small social groups, the world would be a much better place. Alas, it is not - and some people deserve the middle finger or a fist to the face if they push it (: Is that the case? I've not made up my mind on this issue, but I suspect these people have such high suicide rates because of misery brought on by transsexualism, itself. Reality being opposed to what you feel is going to cause big problems with an issue as important as gender and sexuality and I think that transsexualism is probably best described as a mental illness (and a serious one at that). Maybe transsexual suicide rates wouldn't be so high if people were more accepting, thus allowing them better support, but I doubt that prejudice is the primary cause. Well, you'd be wrong. Because all the medical studies contradict you. Transsexual suicide rates are most drastically lowered by having accepting family, and followed by that, accepting friends. It is also well documented that hormone therapy greatly increases the quality of life for transsexuals. But, yea, go on assuming the reason transsexuals commit suicide is because you "feel" like they're weird. Your feelings are, after all, a great objective basis for this discussion.
Point out to me where in my post I referenced any of my feelings or used the word "weird". I said "I suspect" and "I think". And I mentioned that support will help people get through hard times, thus reducing suicide rates, but what I question is whether those hard times are caused by prejudice alone, or transsexualism itself.
As for quality of life studies, those need to be taken with a grain of salt. Happiness (which is what really matters) is too subjective a term and complex a state for any study to effectively measure. If someone claims that they are happy in a study, it is probable that they aren't constantly miserable, but you really can't make any conclusions beyond that.
Either way, nobody would contend that transsexualism does not cause distress among people (they don't take hormones and get surgery just for the hell of it) so I don't understand why you would be so offended, to the point of claiming I said stupid things which I didn't say, because I think that transsexualism itself is a cause of suicide.
|
Either way, nobody would contend that transsexualism does not cause distress among people (they don't take hormones and get surgery just for the hell of it) so I don't understand why you would be so offended, to the point of claiming I said stupid things which I didn't say, because I think that transsexualism itself is a cause of suicide.
No one would contend that transitioning does not cause distress, but that does not mean transsexualism causes distress. And if you really have to wonder why I think transsexualism itself being a 'cause' of suicide is offensive, well, I doubt I could explain it to you. It's once again linked to transphobic beliefs - that transsexualism is a pathology to be cured rather than an identity. But most psychologists agree - transsexualism is not a mental health disease that you will never recover from. Gender dysphoria is a medical problem that is fixed by transitioning. After you transition and deal with your problems, you don't have gender dysphoria anymore. Transsexualism isn't the problem, gender dysphoria is.
|
On March 15 2013 13:59 shinosai wrote:Show nested quote +
Either way, nobody would contend that transsexualism does not cause distress among people (they don't take hormones and get surgery just for the hell of it) so I don't understand why you would be so offended, to the point of claiming I said stupid things which I didn't say, because I think that transsexualism itself is a cause of suicide.
No one would contend that transitioning does not cause distress, but that does not mean transsexualism causes distress. And if you really have to wonder why I think transsexualism itself being a 'cause' of suicide is offensive, well, I doubt I could explain it to you. It's once again linked to transphobic beliefs - that transsexualism is a pathology to be cured rather than an identity. But most psychologists agree - transsexualism is not a mental health disease that you will never recover from. Gender dysphoria is a medical problem that is fixed by transitioning. After you transition and deal with your problems, you don't have gender dysphoria anymore. Transsexualism isn't the problem, gender dysphoria is.
Thank you for posting this. I was about to get really angry at the other poster but now I'm starting to think maybe it was just them using the wrong word for what they meant. The whole homo/transphobia in this thread thing looked like it was getting out of hand...
|
transgender has to have an intrinsic value about self else it can't function (well). yourselves stated that taken the influences of social binarism out of this issue, you'd still know what/who you are. that 'you' needs to have an idea about itself (for its own sake), even when/if the context is entirely missing.
figuring out how that value fits (can fit) in a particular context is what makes one happy.
(that's like, in my opinion because cognition > behavior)
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
a hidden piece of information here is that in choosing to have a physical alteration of the body, transgendered people tend to see gender (or rather, gender identity) as a big issue. it's not quite the same as someone who's gender confused refusing to accept social classification. it's rather someone who has already formoed a quite strong positive gender identifcation.
basically if this person feels strongly about being a certain gender and go to the extent of getting a surgery to become that gender, then just respect that. why not
|
respecting a decision and accepting a decision are two different things.
if you see it as: nature/evolution made art vs man made art you can start to realize why the later get's downplayed alot
(just look at binaries that have had surgery, for cosmetic purposes).
also, as far as i understood it, that choice is already made for them. they would all want for their gender to match their sex. so, as i see it, the only restrains remaining are of monetary and perhaps of moral/ethical nature.
|
|
|
My take on gay rights is that they have every right that any other human has.
My take on the marriage issue is that if they can find a church that wants to marry two of the same sex, then that's fine. However I think that it is a clear infringement of freedom of religion to make a law that says every church has to accept and allow gay marriages in their chuch/congregation/community.
|
On March 16 2013 20:58 Deadlifter wrote:
My take on gay rights is that they have every right that any other human has.
My take on the marriage issue is that if they can find a church that wants to marry two of the same sex, then that's fine. However I think that it is a clear infringement of freedom of religion to make a law that says every church has to accept and allow gay marriages in their chuch/congregation/community.
That's because there are is something that goes above freedom of religion, at least in the countries that have or want gay marriage: The law.
There are borders to freedom of religion. And for a good reason. Human rights are important.
Or would you be ok with a church of human offering too.
|
On March 15 2013 11:55 OsoVega wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2013 11:37 Cyro wrote: trans people have it pretty shit. Probably why the suicide rate is like 25-50%. If so many people were not so self centered and inconsiderate, completely unable to empathize outside of their small social groups, the world would be a much better place. Alas, it is not - and some people deserve the middle finger or a fist to the face if they push it (: Is that the case? I've not made up my mind on this issue, but I suspect these people have such high suicide rates because of misery brought on by transsexualism, itself. Reality being opposed to what you feel is going to cause big problems with an issue as important as gender and sexuality and I think that transsexualism is probably best described as a mental illness (and a serious one at that). Maybe transsexual suicide rates wouldn't be so high if people were more accepting, thus allowing them better support, but I doubt that prejudice is the primary cause.
It probably is the case. Being trans sucks a bit, but it isn't that bad once you're not getting shit for it 24/7 like I did from my family. If not for three friends being there for me and actually supporting me, I'd have probably tried to kill myself yet again.
Simply put, it sucks to basically become an individual without rights that people will jump at the chance to deny an existence--and have almost every single person you know right on board to toss shit at you, even the people that supposedly would support you irregardless (family.)
On March 16 2013 17:31 oneofthem wrote:
a hidden piece of information here is that in choosing to have a physical alteration of the body, transgendered people tend to see gender (or rather, gender identity) as a big issue. it's not quite the same as someone who's gender confused refusing to accept social classification. it's rather someone who has already formoed a quite strong positive gender identifcation.
basically if this person feels strongly about being a certain gender and go to the extent of getting a surgery to become that gender, then just respect that. why not
It's sort of like being outside of the Matrix, honestly. I think about gender and gender expression a whole lot when I see individuals interacting between one another. It's both amazing and absolutely horrifying to see something that most people aren't even aware of transpiring.
On March 16 2013 20:58 Deadlifter wrote:
My take on gay rights is that they have every right that any other human has.
My take on the marriage issue is that if they can find a church that wants to marry two of the same sex, then that's fine. However I think that it is a clear infringement of freedom of religion to make a law that says every church has to accept and allow gay marriages in their chuch/congregation/community.
The problem with the church issue, is that state-sponsored marriages exist and are the basis for many legal rights and benefits.
I don't think many reasonable individuals would want to force churches to marry gay people. But I don't see why changing the banning on state-sponsored marriages (the ones that actually matter in terms of legal privileges) would be unfair in any way to churches--it's simply not their business what the state does, nor people outside of their church.
|
question: why trans can't/don't/won't develop a gender expression of their own?
|
On March 16 2013 22:55 xM(Z wrote:
question: why trans can't/don't/won't develop a gender expression of their own?
Because we already have a gender which might sound flippant, but it's not intended to. The whole problem in the first place is that gender identity is, if not impossible, extremely challenging to change and trying to express a different one sucks. Having a third identity defeats the point, no one wants to be trans it's simply a phase between where you started and where you're meant to be. Not many would transition if it meant to transitioning to someone else they weren't and pretending to be them too.
Ofc, if you meant trans more widely than TS, there are plenty who do adopt different expressions of gender (incluing no expression).
|
that's circular reasoning i think.
you can only associate a behavior to your gender, to what you're meant to be, only after you see it in others?.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 16 2013 22:55 xM(Z wrote:
question: why trans can't/don't/won't develop a gender expression of their own?
they do. but invention of new concepts to satisfy an onlooker is not a fair burden.
private language argument and so forth. your other post above didn't make much sense
|
On March 16 2013 23:25 xM(Z wrote:
that's circular reasoning i think.
you can only associate a behavior to your gender, to what you're meant to be, only after you see it in others?.
Only under the faulty concept that gender is exclusively a social construct. Gender norms and expression is more of a social thing, whereas there's an innate sense of gender within an individual.
|
On March 16 2013 23:25 xM(Z wrote:
that's circular reasoning i think.
you can only associate a behavior to your gender, to what you're meant to be, only after you see it in others?.
Not at all, though I think I understand why you could read that from my comment. Before I try to explain that though, I figure it might be easier to show why a trans gender expression option would not be useful or desirable to most.
If someone were to be emotionally suffering as a result of being expected (forced?) to express a gender identity they can not associate with and are forced to cross dress, use the wrong bathrooms, form all their relationships under a pretend identity etc and they then found there's this third option, why should they choose it?
They move from expressing one identity they don't want to another they don't, but this time they also out themselves as trans and get all the additional abuse of that but with this option there is no end to it. There's not going to be a point where you can just fit in and be happy, there'll be boxes on forms to tick and potentially the exact same issues regarding most of the pre-transition state. You're still not going to be able to just be yourself, only this time it's never going to end until you die.
I describe myself as trans for other people's benefit, to those who know me I don't use that label because it's not a description of who I am, it's a description of what I was no different to describing myself as someone who had chickenpox (I'm not sure everyone would share that viewpoint, just explaining as best I can). The goal is never to be trans, so I would have never tried to be and I don't know anyone that has transitioned to be trans, rather than realigning themselves with their actual gender.
That's a bit rambly (MLG finishes so early in the morning -_-) but I think I kinda got to my point, lol.
Going back to your point in the quote above, I'm gonna just sum up what I'm thiking and hope something fits. Everything feels wrong when you try to be someone you're not. There's never a point you can just forget about it. I know a lot of people who transition later actually go ultra masculine for a while to just try to make it fit but it doesn't because it's more fundamental than that. I could no more change my gender than any non trans person, and simply electing for a third option isn't undesirable because I saw in others who I wanted to be, but rather because I couldn't be anyone other than who I am.
Essentially It isn't just behaviour. There is no MtF female behaviour or FtM male behaviour we're still just as varied as people in our gender more widely but there are issues beyond that. If I were to have corrected my body such that I'm comfortable with it, why would my gender expression vary from that? There's so much more to gender than just how you elect to behave and so many non trans people act in ways which might be considered gender atypical as a result, it's something far more far reaching than that.
I don't know that I'm getting anywhere with my jumpy rambling at this point, lol. I wish I had fusionsdf's elloquence on this issue... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
