|
On March 25 2013 05:36 NHL Fever wrote:Show nested quote +
In a society that doesn't actively oppress minority groups, no you wouldn't need specific protections for anybody beyond basic human rights.
But in such societies, the creation of such laws still do not succeed in protecting them. And in the societies where they are safe, laws protecting human rights already cover it. So in either case it's redundant. They also serve to legally institutionalize the segregation of those groups, making them more distinct a separate in people's minds, which is the opposite of what an all-inclusive society would strive for IMO. Say somebody gets punched because they are gay. There is nothing about gay rights (or similar) laws that would make it any clearer or easier for a judge to convict the person who punched, assuming enough evidence is there. Doesn't matter if they hate gay people or mistook the guy for someone else or anything in between, still guilty.
It is perhaps unlikely that it'd help in the immediate instance of a violent assault (the social effects might be measurable?) having protection against discrimination when accessing shops and services where there has otherwise not existed any protection is extremely useful. In the UK for instance, trans rights have actually been particularly about just treating trans individuals according to their correct gender and undoing previous existing discrimination in law.
|
On March 17 2013 01:42 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2013 01:17 fugs wrote:
A trans person's gender is different than their sex. Them growing up having a vagina does not mean that they naturally fall into gender lanes. Your brain decides who you are not your genitals. Basing arguments about gender stereotypes on trans people is flawed because being trans doesn't depend on outside sources. It's your instinct that tells you your gender not the doctor slapping your ass when you fall out of your mom. that is not really the problem at least from my perspective. what i'm having problems understanding is why the ego doesn't/can't reconcile the psychological female self with the physical male self for example (MtF case)?. i guess it's one of those "you'd have to be one to know" kind of thing.
Because you have less control over your brain than you think you do. It's like telling a clinically depressed person to cheer up.
|
Australia8532 Posts
I know it is quite a long judgment but it is one of the best judgments in terms of construction and argument that I have ever read. It's subject matter is also incredibly relevant as it establishes the legal position for trans in Australia, which at first looked to be at odds with English law. I definitely think this is worth a read to see the progress in our society in terms of tolerance and even scientific understanding. There are also references to expert scientific evidence on "brain sex"
+ Show Spoiler [Full Judgment] +http://www.wallbanks.com/PDF/Re%20Kevin_FullCourt.pdf
I'm sure there is a summary somewhere but it basically covers the definition of male and female for the purposes of the Marriage Act (which currently only allows marriage between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others). Kevin was born biologically female but completed a FtM transition. The AG was contending that their marriage was invalid at law due to the legal definitions of male and female.
|
On March 25 2013 06:44 Iyerbeth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2013 05:36 NHL Fever wrote:
In a society that doesn't actively oppress minority groups, no you wouldn't need specific protections for anybody beyond basic human rights.
But in such societies, the creation of such laws still do not succeed in protecting them. And in the societies where they are safe, laws protecting human rights already cover it. So in either case it's redundant. They also serve to legally institutionalize the segregation of those groups, making them more distinct a separate in people's minds, which is the opposite of what an all-inclusive society would strive for IMO. Say somebody gets punched because they are gay. There is nothing about gay rights (or similar) laws that would make it any clearer or easier for a judge to convict the person who punched, assuming enough evidence is there. Doesn't matter if they hate gay people or mistook the guy for someone else or anything in between, still guilty. It is perhaps unlikely that it'd help in the immediate instance of a violent assault (the social effects might be measurable?) having protection against discrimination when accessing shops and services where there has otherwise not existed any protection is extremely useful. In the UK for instance, trans rights have actually been particularly about just treating trans individuals according to their correct gender and undoing previous existing discrimination in law.
Undoing discrimination is one thing (women no longer property). Specifically adding rights that already exist under general human rights laws is another. Assuming laws already exist where men and women are given equal rights, why would a trans need laws to be treated as the desired gender? They both already have equal rights so either way they choose, its the same no?
I think laws that single people out based on race or gender do not succeed in adding protections for those groups. They just succeed in singling them out.
|
On March 25 2013 08:45 NHL Fever wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2013 06:44 Iyerbeth wrote:On March 25 2013 05:36 NHL Fever wrote:
In a society that doesn't actively oppress minority groups, no you wouldn't need specific protections for anybody beyond basic human rights.
But in such societies, the creation of such laws still do not succeed in protecting them. And in the societies where they are safe, laws protecting human rights already cover it. So in either case it's redundant. They also serve to legally institutionalize the segregation of those groups, making them more distinct a separate in people's minds, which is the opposite of what an all-inclusive society would strive for IMO. Say somebody gets punched because they are gay. There is nothing about gay rights (or similar) laws that would make it any clearer or easier for a judge to convict the person who punched, assuming enough evidence is there. Doesn't matter if they hate gay people or mistook the guy for someone else or anything in between, still guilty. It is perhaps unlikely that it'd help in the immediate instance of a violent assault (the social effects might be measurable?) having protection against discrimination when accessing shops and services where there has otherwise not existed any protection is extremely useful. In the UK for instance, trans rights have actually been particularly about just treating trans individuals according to their correct gender and undoing previous existing discrimination in law. Undoing discrimination is one thing (women no longer property). Specifically adding rights that already exist under general human rights laws is another. Assuming laws already exist where men and women are given equal rights, why would a trans need laws to be treated as the desired gender? They both already have equal rights so either way they choose, its the same no? I think laws that single people out based on race or gender do not succeed in adding protections for those groups. They just succeed in singling them out.
In an ideal world that would be correct, but in this one there are many who argue that existing laws don't apply to trans people, and so specifically protection under the law to make it clear that they do are required. I would imagine that within 50 years (am I being naive, I wonder?) laws simply refering to "people" rather than any description will be all that are required but until that point failing to provide adequate protection under the law for the sake of principal would be wrong.
|
On March 25 2013 08:45 NHL Fever wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2013 06:44 Iyerbeth wrote:On March 25 2013 05:36 NHL Fever wrote:
In a society that doesn't actively oppress minority groups, no you wouldn't need specific protections for anybody beyond basic human rights.
But in such societies, the creation of such laws still do not succeed in protecting them. And in the societies where they are safe, laws protecting human rights already cover it. So in either case it's redundant. They also serve to legally institutionalize the segregation of those groups, making them more distinct a separate in people's minds, which is the opposite of what an all-inclusive society would strive for IMO. Say somebody gets punched because they are gay. There is nothing about gay rights (or similar) laws that would make it any clearer or easier for a judge to convict the person who punched, assuming enough evidence is there. Doesn't matter if they hate gay people or mistook the guy for someone else or anything in between, still guilty. It is perhaps unlikely that it'd help in the immediate instance of a violent assault (the social effects might be measurable?) having protection against discrimination when accessing shops and services where there has otherwise not existed any protection is extremely useful. In the UK for instance, trans rights have actually been particularly about just treating trans individuals according to their correct gender and undoing previous existing discrimination in law. Undoing discrimination is one thing (women no longer property). Specifically adding rights that already exist under general human rights laws is another. Assuming laws already exist where men and women are given equal rights, why would a trans need laws to be treated as the desired gender? They both already have equal rights so either way they choose, its the same no? I think laws that single people out based on race or gender do not succeed in adding protections for those groups. They just succeed in singling them out.
I'm going to focus on the bolded and state that just because men and women are treated equally in this example, that doesn't mean that people will still respect their gender identity.
IE: Up until recently, in my state (CT) where the sexes are pretty well treated in terms of equality between them, an employer could force a transgender employee to use the bathroom mirroring their birth sex (the 'wrong' bathroom.)
Which would be pretty damn humiliating.
|
IE: Up until recently, in my state (CT) where the sexes are pretty well treated in terms of equality between them, an employer could force a transgender employee to use the bathroom mirroring their birth sex (the 'wrong' bathroom.)
Which would be pretty damn humiliating.
Was the person embarrassed in being told to use the wrong bathroom, in actually using the bathroom? That does sound like a tough situation, since the coworkers might also be awkward in sharing the bathroom with someone they perceive as of the other gender. So who's awkwardness takes priority?
Good example though, any others you can think of?
|
On March 25 2013 09:35 NHL Fever wrote:Show nested quote +
IE: Up until recently, in my state (CT) where the sexes are pretty well treated in terms of equality between them, an employer could force a transgender employee to use the bathroom mirroring their birth sex (the 'wrong' bathroom.)
Which would be pretty damn humiliating.
Was the person embarrassed in being told to use the wrong bathroom, in actually using the bathroom? That does sound like a tough situation, since the coworkers might also be awkward in sharing the bathroom with someone they perceive as of the other gender. So who's awkwardness takes priority? Good example though, any others you can think of?
Well, the only time I've ever been in that situation was a shit employer who wanted to give me grief. Back then, Social Security had this fun policy of flagging someone whose application gender marker didn't match their records (which are only changeable by surgery. Fantastic, but silly pricey) so they found out, and decided all high and mighty that they'd terminate me if I used anything but the men's restroom. By this point, I was passing fine, so it was really irritating. I walked into the rest room one day when I really couldn't wait (up until then I had just waited until I got home) and had two older gentlemen started asking what I was doing when this was clearly the wrong restroom--asking if I had gotten lost etc lol. I did my business, told them they I was apparently just a bit confused, then just went to my boss and told him that he could find someone else and quit.
I've read several cases where similar happened, and the person developed a bladder infection or the like from trying to hold it rather than be humiliated. My state passed a bathroom/housing/employment law last year that cut this shit finally--but not without the typical opposition arguments.
Regardless though, there's a hell of a lot of different people at there. In all my years of living, I can't remember one time I really paid much attention to anyone else in a restroom. The whole "men pretending to be women to rape women in changing rooms/bathrooms!" boogeyman is a hilariously poor defense that a lot of people use too--as though there's some mystical barrier that the door sign gives to stop someone from doing that without bothering to pretend to be the opposite gender.
Honestly, I think a personal policy of using whatever restroom/changing room results in the least commotion is best, and a hammer one way or the other is stupid--it causes just as much commotion for a passing trans person to enter the bathroom of their birth sex as a non-passing trans person entering one of their gender. But that may also be my passing privilege speaking, and I remember how much it fucking sucked to have to use the men's room in the past. Trust me, the amount of time a lot of trans people spend thinking about the choice when looking at this sign is way more than most cis people ever will.
That being said, I think the "awkwardness" of the trans person takes priority in this case. Denying someone accommodation based on their gender identity seems like the greater evil. I mean, for example, I might find using the bathroom with someone that is mentally retarded or has a severe handicap very awkward, but I don't feel my ease should supersede their ability to use the same restroom as me. Again, perhaps a personal bias on the subject, so I can only give one side really.
Another example could be things like security checks and pat-downs. In many cases, a person is offered a check by an individual of the same gender. If the trans persons gender identity isn't respected there, it could be quite uncomfortable for them (I personally don't mind much either way, but I know some people really wouldn't want to be felt up by the opposite sex like that.) Society has a ton of little gendered things that most people don't really ever think about, that in many ways could be use to humiliate or otherwise oppress a trans person if so desired, even if Men and Women have equal rights.
|
Australia8532 Posts
On March 25 2013 09:35 NHL Fever wrote:Show nested quote +
IE: Up until recently, in my state (CT) where the sexes are pretty well treated in terms of equality between them, an employer could force a transgender employee to use the bathroom mirroring their birth sex (the 'wrong' bathroom.)
Which would be pretty damn humiliating.
Was the person embarrassed in being told to use the wrong bathroom, in actually using the bathroom? That does sound like a tough situation, since the coworkers might also be awkward in sharing the bathroom with someone they perceive as of the other gender. So who's awkwardness takes priority? Good example though, any others you can think of?
It doesn't actually matter how I perceive other people's gender. What matters is their actual gender! A person who has completed a transition to another gender, is that gender. Do I feel awkward going to public bathrooms with other men? (I am male) Yes. Does that mean they must go to another bathroom? No.
This isn't about 'awkwardness' - this is about equality and tolerance. With the law in most Western jurisdictions slowly catching up, we can hope to change some backward social perceptions
|
On March 25 2013 06:50 fusionsdf wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2013 01:42 xM(Z wrote:On March 17 2013 01:17 fugs wrote:
A trans person's gender is different than their sex. Them growing up having a vagina does not mean that they naturally fall into gender lanes. Your brain decides who you are not your genitals. Basing arguments about gender stereotypes on trans people is flawed because being trans doesn't depend on outside sources. It's your instinct that tells you your gender not the doctor slapping your ass when you fall out of your mom. that is not really the problem at least from my perspective. what i'm having problems understanding is why the ego doesn't/can't reconcile the psychological female self with the physical male self for example (MtF case)?. i guess it's one of those "you'd have to be one to know" kind of thing. Because you have less control over your brain than you think you do. It's like telling a clinically depressed person to cheer up.
Seriously, a lot of people don't know what it's like to not have complete control over their brain.
I have Tourette Syndrome. Over many years, I've learned how to "control" it, , which means that I know how to make it so that there's no way you'll ever know I have Tourettes unless you know what you're looking for, but it still bugs the shit out of me all the time.
Imagine how it felt the last time you got a mosquito bite. You know that when you scratch it, it gets worse. But it itches, and your brain keeps nagging at you to scratch it. You fight the impulse to scratch it, and eventually the thought slips into the back of your mind for a while.
Imagine that feeling, but a hundred times stronger. And you can never force it to go away, it's always there. That's what I go through all the time, except I've barely scratched the surface; there's a lot more to it than just that. And I have a very mild case of Tourettes, most that have it are not so lucky.
While I can't relate to my body being a different gender than my mind, I can relate to not having complete control over my mind.
|
On March 25 2013 11:33 Impervious wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2013 06:50 fusionsdf wrote:On March 17 2013 01:42 xM(Z wrote:On March 17 2013 01:17 fugs wrote:
A trans person's gender is different than their sex. Them growing up having a vagina does not mean that they naturally fall into gender lanes. Your brain decides who you are not your genitals. Basing arguments about gender stereotypes on trans people is flawed because being trans doesn't depend on outside sources. It's your instinct that tells you your gender not the doctor slapping your ass when you fall out of your mom. that is not really the problem at least from my perspective. what i'm having problems understanding is why the ego doesn't/can't reconcile the psychological female self with the physical male self for example (MtF case)?. i guess it's one of those "you'd have to be one to know" kind of thing. Because you have less control over your brain than you think you do. It's like telling a clinically depressed person to cheer up. Seriously, a lot of people don't know what it's like to not have complete control over their brain. I have Tourette Syndrome. Over many years, I've learned how to "control" it, , which means that I know how to make it so that there's no way you'll ever know I have Tourettes unless you know what you're looking for, but it still bugs the shit out of me all the time. Imagine how it felt the last time you got a mosquito bite. You know that when you scratch it, it gets worse. But it itches, and your brain keeps nagging at you to scratch it. You fight the impulse to scratch it, and eventually the thought slips into the back of your mind for a while. Imagine that feeling, but a hundred times stronger. And you can never force it to go away, it's always there. That's what I go through all the time, except I've barely scratched the surface; there's a lot more to it than just that. And I have a very mild case of Tourettes, most that have it are not so lucky. While I can't relate to my body being a different gender than my mind, I can relate to not having complete control over my mind.
I'm not trying to minimalize your situation, but no one has complete control over their mind. No one. Thing is, though, everyone is still responsible for the choices they make.
|
On March 25 2013 11:58 danl9rm wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2013 11:33 Impervious wrote:On March 25 2013 06:50 fusionsdf wrote:On March 17 2013 01:42 xM(Z wrote:On March 17 2013 01:17 fugs wrote:
A trans person's gender is different than their sex. Them growing up having a vagina does not mean that they naturally fall into gender lanes. Your brain decides who you are not your genitals. Basing arguments about gender stereotypes on trans people is flawed because being trans doesn't depend on outside sources. It's your instinct that tells you your gender not the doctor slapping your ass when you fall out of your mom. that is not really the problem at least from my perspective. what i'm having problems understanding is why the ego doesn't/can't reconcile the psychological female self with the physical male self for example (MtF case)?. i guess it's one of those "you'd have to be one to know" kind of thing. Because you have less control over your brain than you think you do. It's like telling a clinically depressed person to cheer up. Seriously, a lot of people don't know what it's like to not have complete control over their brain. I have Tourette Syndrome. Over many years, I've learned how to "control" it, , which means that I know how to make it so that there's no way you'll ever know I have Tourettes unless you know what you're looking for, but it still bugs the shit out of me all the time. Imagine how it felt the last time you got a mosquito bite. You know that when you scratch it, it gets worse. But it itches, and your brain keeps nagging at you to scratch it. You fight the impulse to scratch it, and eventually the thought slips into the back of your mind for a while. Imagine that feeling, but a hundred times stronger. And you can never force it to go away, it's always there. That's what I go through all the time, except I've barely scratched the surface; there's a lot more to it than just that. And I have a very mild case of Tourettes, most that have it are not so lucky. While I can't relate to my body being a different gender than my mind, I can relate to not having complete control over my mind. I'm not trying to minimalize your situation, but no one has complete control over their mind. No one. Thing is, though, everyone is still responsible for the choices they make.
Fair point.
But at the same point, I highly doubt you run into problems where your muscles in the back of your throat are spasming and feel like you're choking on something when in reality, nothing is there. Or you've never had photos taken of you where only the whites of your eyes are visible because they have rolled sideways (in different directions), which also fucking stings when it occurs, and can actually be disorienting for a couple of seconds because it takes a while for my eyes to re-align and properly focus on anything again..... And I'm sure you've never had to deal with your neck muscles randomly twitching with enough force to cause damage to your neck (I had to see a chiropractor for years to fix my neck).....
EDIT - I know that personally, I can have a very hard time controlling my thoughts, and even some specific muscle movements. It is incredibly hard to explain.....
|
On March 25 2013 11:58 danl9rm wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2013 11:33 Impervious wrote:On March 25 2013 06:50 fusionsdf wrote:On March 17 2013 01:42 xM(Z wrote:On March 17 2013 01:17 fugs wrote:
A trans person's gender is different than their sex. Them growing up having a vagina does not mean that they naturally fall into gender lanes. Your brain decides who you are not your genitals. Basing arguments about gender stereotypes on trans people is flawed because being trans doesn't depend on outside sources. It's your instinct that tells you your gender not the doctor slapping your ass when you fall out of your mom. that is not really the problem at least from my perspective. what i'm having problems understanding is why the ego doesn't/can't reconcile the psychological female self with the physical male self for example (MtF case)?. i guess it's one of those "you'd have to be one to know" kind of thing. Because you have less control over your brain than you think you do. It's like telling a clinically depressed person to cheer up. Seriously, a lot of people don't know what it's like to not have complete control over their brain. I have Tourette Syndrome. Over many years, I've learned how to "control" it, , which means that I know how to make it so that there's no way you'll ever know I have Tourettes unless you know what you're looking for, but it still bugs the shit out of me all the time. Imagine how it felt the last time you got a mosquito bite. You know that when you scratch it, it gets worse. But it itches, and your brain keeps nagging at you to scratch it. You fight the impulse to scratch it, and eventually the thought slips into the back of your mind for a while. Imagine that feeling, but a hundred times stronger. And you can never force it to go away, it's always there. That's what I go through all the time, except I've barely scratched the surface; there's a lot more to it than just that. And I have a very mild case of Tourettes, most that have it are not so lucky. While I can't relate to my body being a different gender than my mind, I can relate to not having complete control over my mind. I'm not trying to minimalize your situation, but no one has complete control over their mind. No one. Thing is, though, everyone is still responsible for the choices they make.
No one has complete control over your mind, true, but the mind is dictated by the chemical events in the brain, and the mind operates correctly when a very precise balance is met. The fact of the matter is there are conditions where this balance is not completely achieved and problems occur. If our actions are purely based on free will then there is no reason Tourette's, ADHD, Depression, and OCD should exist. These conditions do exist and to me at least make a pretty strong argument that our thoughts and actions are simply the result of chemical processes that occur in the brain. No one chooses to have the symptoms brought about by these conditions.
EDIT: to tie this in with the general discussion of the thread, homosexuality could be seen as a condition just as Tourette's can. I think it's fair to say that the desire to have sex that will not result in reproduction is not a trait that would be favored by natural selection, so technically speaking it probably should be considered a mental condition, in the sense that it causes impulses that do not favor sexual reproduction. However, is it damaging on society? I would think not, the human population is rapidly growing and homosexuality can still result in healthy relationships, so personally I have no problem with it.
|
EDIT: to tie this in with the general discussion of the thread, homosexuality could be seen as a condition just as Tourette's can. I think it's fair to say that the desire to have sex that will not result in reproduction is not a trait that would be favored by natural selection, so technically speaking it probably should be considered a mental condition, in the sense that it causes impulses that do not favor sexual reproduction. However, is it damaging on society? I would think not, the human population is rapidly growing and homosexuality can still result in healthy relationships, so personally I have no problem with it.
This is one of the most absurd things I've read in this entire thread. Have you been to a college campus lately? There is an entire GENERATION of people that want to have sex that doesn't result in reproduction.
Even if desiring to have sex that will not result in reproduction was limited to gay people (hint: it's not, straight people have sex with birth control all the time), that still doesn't prove that it's some sort of mental condition. This is misuse of evolution. Look, if being gay was really such a defect that it would not be favored by natural selection, then being gay wouldn't be in the gene pool anymore.
We know that traits are passed on by natural selection, but when you see a trait and say, "It shouldn't be favored by natural selection, therefore it's 'bad' or a 'mental issue'" you're misusing the term. Because natural selection is precisely what allows such a trait to exist as we speak.
|
On March 25 2013 13:11 shinosai wrote:Show nested quote +EDIT: to tie this in with the general discussion of the thread, homosexuality could be seen as a condition just as Tourette's can. I think it's fair to say that the desire to have sex that will not result in reproduction is not a trait that would be favored by natural selection, so technically speaking it probably should be considered a mental condition, in the sense that it causes impulses that do not favor sexual reproduction. However, is it damaging on society? I would think not, the human population is rapidly growing and homosexuality can still result in healthy relationships, so personally I have no problem with it. This is one of the most absurd things I've read in this entire thread. Have you been to a college campus lately? There is an entire GENERATION of people that want to have sex that doesn't result in reproduction. Even if desiring to have sex that will not result in reproduction was limited to gay people (hint: it's not, straight people have sex with birth control all the time), that still doesn't prove that it's some sort of mental condition. This is misuse of evolution. Look, if being gay was really such a defect that it would not be favored by natural selection, then being gay wouldn't be in the gene pool anymore. We know that traits are passed on by natural selection, but when you see a trait and say, "It shouldn't be favored by natural selection, therefore it's 'bad' or a 'mental issue'" you're misusing the term. Because natural selection is precisely what allows such a trait to exist as we speak.
I didn't mean to offend, and I never said that being homosexual is "bad" just like I would never say having depression or OCD is bad. However, the urge to have sex with women results in reproduction. Naturally, we are in an advanced enough society to have these natural urges, but not want a child so things like birth control are around, but the underlying desire to have sex with someone of the opposite sex is still there. However with homosexual people they have a natural desire to have sex with people of the same sex, which is a desire that wouldn't result in reproduction. Your assumption that any kind of behavioral trait that exists must be favored by natural selection merely based on the fact the trait exists doesn't explain physical deformity, mental retardation and all other unfavorable traits that are present in our species. I'm not saying homosexuality is immoral or wrong, and I'm not even trying to offer an opinion on homosexuality, all I'm saying it is a behavioral pattern that doesn't result in reproduction, and therefore is not something that would be favored by natural selection.
|
On March 25 2013 13:34 Tewks44 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2013 13:11 shinosai wrote:EDIT: to tie this in with the general discussion of the thread, homosexuality could be seen as a condition just as Tourette's can. I think it's fair to say that the desire to have sex that will not result in reproduction is not a trait that would be favored by natural selection, so technically speaking it probably should be considered a mental condition, in the sense that it causes impulses that do not favor sexual reproduction. However, is it damaging on society? I would think not, the human population is rapidly growing and homosexuality can still result in healthy relationships, so personally I have no problem with it. This is one of the most absurd things I've read in this entire thread. Have you been to a college campus lately? There is an entire GENERATION of people that want to have sex that doesn't result in reproduction. Even if desiring to have sex that will not result in reproduction was limited to gay people (hint: it's not, straight people have sex with birth control all the time), that still doesn't prove that it's some sort of mental condition. This is misuse of evolution. Look, if being gay was really such a defect that it would not be favored by natural selection, then being gay wouldn't be in the gene pool anymore. We know that traits are passed on by natural selection, but when you see a trait and say, "It shouldn't be favored by natural selection, therefore it's 'bad' or a 'mental issue'" you're misusing the term. Because natural selection is precisely what allows such a trait to exist as we speak. I didn't mean to offend, and I never said that being homosexual is "bad" just like I would never say having depression or OCD is bad. However, the urge to have sex with women results in reproduction. Naturally, we are in an advanced enough society to have these natural urges, but not want a child so things like birth control are around, but the underlying desire to have sex with someone of the opposite sex is still there. However with homosexual people they have a natural desire to have sex with people of the same sex, which is a desire that wouldn't result in reproduction. Your assumption that any kind of behavioral trait that exists must be favored by natural selection merely based on the fact the trait exists doesn't explain physical deformity, mental retardation and all other unfavorable traits that are present in our species. I'm not saying homosexuality is immoral or wrong, and I'm not even trying to offer an opinion on homosexuality, all I'm saying it is a behavioral pattern that doesn't result in reproduction, and therefore is not something that would be favored by natural selection.
I'll start out by saying that I know and acknowledge that you're not trying to be offensive. But I still think your argument is harmful and not a very good one. The mistake you are making, I believe, is in the second sentence. The urge to have sex with women doesn't need to result in reproduction - sometimes it does, but people have been having sex for fun rather than procreation for a long time (long before we became 'civilized' so to speak. Apparently, so do bonobos and dolphins)...
You've linked sex and reproduction together when they need not be. Gay people are very well capable of having children and the desire for children, and straight people are very well capable of having the desire to not have children. Sometimes straight people have sex strictly for children and then never again (it really does happen). In this case, they had no desire for sex, they just wanted to reproduce. When you unlink the sex and reproduction drives (they are not necessarily linked, only contingently), you can see that pathologizing homosexuality is rather absurd.
As for your comment about deformities and mental retardation: These traits are not necessarily unfavorable to natural selection as they are simply undesired in our particular culture. But feelings about a trait have no bearing on natural selection; it's rather simple, if the trait is truly unfavorable for natural selection, it will disappear. This, of course, will not apply to mutations and chromosome errors, as these are always happening as a part of the evolutionary process. However, these mutations / errors can expect not to be passed on to the next generation if they prevent the subject from engaging in procreation. Such mutations/errors would be extremely rare unless they provided some sort of benefit. Which is why I don't really buy the pathologization of homosexuality. Because rather than being extraordinarily rare, it seems that it's quite prevalent amongst the population, indicating that it is not an unfavorable trait.
|
On March 25 2013 10:55 Alay wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2013 09:35 NHL Fever wrote:
IE: Up until recently, in my state (CT) where the sexes are pretty well treated in terms of equality between them, an employer could force a transgender employee to use the bathroom mirroring their birth sex (the 'wrong' bathroom.)
Which would be pretty damn humiliating.
Was the person embarrassed in being told to use the wrong bathroom, in actually using the bathroom? That does sound like a tough situation, since the coworkers might also be awkward in sharing the bathroom with someone they perceive as of the other gender. So who's awkwardness takes priority? Good example though, any others you can think of? Well, the only time I've ever been in that situation was a shit employer who wanted to give me grief. Back then, Social Security had this fun policy of flagging someone whose application gender marker didn't match their records (which are only changeable by surgery. Fantastic, but silly pricey) so they found out, and decided all high and mighty that they'd terminate me if I used anything but the men's restroom. By this point, I was passing fine, so it was really irritating. I walked into the rest room one day when I really couldn't wait (up until then I had just waited until I got home) and had two older gentlemen started asking what I was doing when this was clearly the wrong restroom--asking if I had gotten lost etc lol. I did my business, told them they I was apparently just a bit confused, then just went to my boss and told him that he could find someone else and quit. I've read several cases where similar happened, and the person developed a bladder infection or the like from trying to hold it rather than be humiliated. My state passed a bathroom/housing/employment law last year that cut this shit finally--but not without the typical opposition arguments. Regardless though, there's a hell of a lot of different people at there. In all my years of living, I can't remember one time I really paid much attention to anyone else in a restroom. The whole "men pretending to be women to rape women in changing rooms/bathrooms!" boogeyman is a hilariously poor defense that a lot of people use too--as though there's some mystical barrier that the door sign gives to stop someone from doing that without bothering to pretend to be the opposite gender. Honestly, I think a personal policy of using whatever restroom/changing room results in the least commotion is best, and a hammer one way or the other is stupid--it causes just as much commotion for a passing trans person to enter the bathroom of their birth sex as a non-passing trans person entering one of their gender. But that may also be my passing privilege speaking, and I remember how much it fucking sucked to have to use the men's room in the past. Trust me, the amount of time a lot of trans people spend thinking about the choice when looking at this sign is way more than most cis people ever will. That being said, I think the "awkwardness" of the trans person takes priority in this case. Denying someone accommodation based on their gender identity seems like the greater evil. I mean, for example, I might find using the bathroom with someone that is mentally retarded or has a severe handicap very awkward, but I don't feel my ease should supersede their ability to use the same restroom as me. Again, perhaps a personal bias on the subject, so I can only give one side really. Another example could be things like security checks and pat-downs. In many cases, a person is offered a check by an individual of the same gender. If the trans persons gender identity isn't respected there, it could be quite uncomfortable for them (I personally don't mind much either way, but I know some people really wouldn't want to be felt up by the opposite sex like that.) Society has a ton of little gendered things that most people don't really ever think about, that in many ways could be use to humiliate or otherwise oppress a trans person if so desired, even if Men and Women have equal rights.
That's some food for thought. Bad bosses are I suppose common. It sounds a lot more like your boss was making your life hard and the bathroom issue was really just a side point. You can correct me but it sounds likely that even with bathroom laws in place, your boss would probably have found some other issue to harass you on and it really wasn't about the bathroom?
I'm trying to put myself in the situation where I would be forced to use the women's bathroom, and when I think about it I think I would not care. Would probably quickly become pretty normalized. Of course if I was forced to use it out of sheer spite it could be different, which is why again I would ask was the bath actually the issue? The advantage of the men's washroom is the existence of urinals and the shorter lines at events, not the other men inside. Would not anyone with the male equipment come to that same conclusion?
I see your point about the mentally retarded, but disagree. You are talking about a group with a demonstrable and factual deficiency or inferiority. I doubt you are wanting to go with than analogy regarding trans right? The way I would look at it is no matter what somebody might be denied based on their gender. Either the trans is denied the washroom of their perceived gender or the cis is denied the privacy from the perceived other gender. In either case one can question whether those fears/concerns really make any sense.
|
It doesn't actually matter how I perceive other people's gender. What matters is their actual gender!
We are not islands however and we do have to mind how our presentation and presence affects others. All part of living together in civilization. For example I might enjoy walking about naked and think that's perfectly fine. And I might mean no harm by it. But I would still not do that out of consideration of the disruption it would cause to others.
Furthermore, what 'is' the gender is the subject of wide debate so it's not even close to that simple.
A person who has completed a transition to another gender, is that gender.
This presupposes that if do not complete transition, then they are not that gender. I don't any trans folks would agree with that. And I don't anti folks who don't believe in trans would agree with it either. So I don't think anyone at all would agree with it.
Do I feel awkward going to public bathrooms with other men? (I am male) Yes. Does that mean they must go to another bathroom? No.
That is actually an argument in favour of a trans going to the assigned bathroom. Just like you, they can put up with being awkward in the bathroom. In fact anyone can in either bathroom, I would say.
This isn't about 'awkwardness' - this is about equality and tolerance. With the law in most Western jurisdictions slowly catching up, we can hope to change some backward social perceptions
Tolerance and equality can quickly turn into tyrannical regimes that oppress those who don't follow what they view as the right philosophy on 'tolerance'. That's why democracy has to play a role. Too often tolerance is just a tool subjugate the right's of one group to another. Plenty of historical precedent for that. Russia and France had totally unfair, totally reprehensible aristocracies who's every advance was at the expense of the common man. Revolutions happened and new systems were set up with highly laudable principles including those to make sure the poor folks at the mercy of the nobles have all their rights protected and society would be better. How did that work out?
|
On March 25 2013 06:50 fusionsdf wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2013 01:42 xM(Z wrote:On March 17 2013 01:17 fugs wrote:
A trans person's gender is different than their sex. Them growing up having a vagina does not mean that they naturally fall into gender lanes. Your brain decides who you are not your genitals. Basing arguments about gender stereotypes on trans people is flawed because being trans doesn't depend on outside sources. It's your instinct that tells you your gender not the doctor slapping your ass when you fall out of your mom. that is not really the problem at least from my perspective. what i'm having problems understanding is why the ego doesn't/can't reconcile the psychological female self with the physical male self for example (MtF case)?. i guess it's one of those "you'd have to be one to know" kind of thing. Because you have less control over your brain than you think you do. It's like telling a clinically depressed person to cheer up.
i meant, why wouldn't you like it in the first place?.
|
On March 25 2013 13:48 NHL Fever wrote:
I'm trying to put myself in the situation where I would be forced to use the women's bathroom, and when I think about it I think I would not care.
If you read what she said, a huge problem is having to explain the situation to the others in that restroom. You cannot just like say you accidentally entered the wrong one, and then stay there anyway. And most trans people who already live full-time don't want to advertise their medical history by letting everyone know that they're trans by having to use the restroom that corresponds with their birth sex.
Also, in your example, you might not care about having to use the women's restroom, but they themselves probably would, to the point that they might even yell for help. Which is why I don't think that if someone had a pre-op FtM employee, they'd ask him to use the women's restroom (I really don't think women would be okay with having Buck Angel in their restroom), but they don't think about that reverse argument and they just tend to do this with MtF employees.
For trans people who can't pass as either sex (either still in transition or they have an androgynous but odd gender expression), there will actually never be a 'right' restroom anywhere (apart from gender-neutral restrooms). Go into the women's one - get yelled at. Go into the men's one - possibly get verbally abused or even beaten up.
On March 25 2013 11:01 bkrow wrote:
A person who has completed a transition to another gender, is that gender.
No, a person who completed transition to another sex, is that sex (albeit infertile), but they have always been their identified gender. Some trans people decide not to transition as they think they'd have way too much to lose, but many of them do make the social transition among their closer family members and closer friends by coming out to them about their true, identified gender, and then they should already be accepted and treated as that gender by them in private so at the very least they'd have that to somewhat better deal with gender dysphoria.
On March 25 2013 21:36 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2013 06:50 fusionsdf wrote:On March 17 2013 01:42 xM(Z wrote:On March 17 2013 01:17 fugs wrote:
A trans person's gender is different than their sex. Them growing up having a vagina does not mean that they naturally fall into gender lanes. Your brain decides who you are not your genitals. Basing arguments about gender stereotypes on trans people is flawed because being trans doesn't depend on outside sources. It's your instinct that tells you your gender not the doctor slapping your ass when you fall out of your mom. that is not really the problem at least from my perspective. what i'm having problems understanding is why the ego doesn't/can't reconcile the psychological female self with the physical male self for example (MtF case)?. i guess it's one of those "you'd have to be one to know" kind of thing. Because you have less control over your brain than you think you do. It's like telling a clinically depressed person to cheer up. i meant, why wouldn't you like it in the first place?.
As much as one can try to like it, gender dysphoria doesn't allow one to; it's more or less extremely severe emotional pain that cannot be ignored and that doesn't go away (without transitioning) that results from the subconscious desire to be accepted as one's identified gender, as well as to have the matching body.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
