Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

NYC can fine employers for referring to transsexuals by wrong pronoun

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by nico View Post
    I have no problem admitting that their are exceptions. That's the point. Exceptional cases where bodies (and brains) are not formed correctly are abnormal. We cannot create universal ethical norms around exceptions that violate not just the majority, but that vast majority whom, mind you, have bodies and minds that function as they should. It is not simply a matter of subjective cultural values. That a person has the body and mind of a man is the obvious biological trajectory. Transgenderism, even when biologically verified, is deviant.
    Deviant in that it is unusual, sure. My point was that the complicated way in which sex is determined in humans means that restricting the distinction to chromosomes doesn't make sense.

    Someone with AIS needs to adjust. Genderless or "communal" rooms should be made available. Also, they need to be smart and recognize where they could best blend in.

    I agree with your reasoning about changing the body. It makes more sense to pursue that option than the other. However, this is where we disagree. I would opt that no change happen. Your goal is to make them normal. They are not normal, and that's the problem. Nothing can change that. They must adapt to the fact that they are abnormal people living in a normal society.
    I wouldn't say it is to make them normal, I see it more as accommodating a malady, like wheelchair ramps or braille signs or handicap stalls.

    Women should always be cautious of men in their vulnerable moments. That's not a culturally relative suggestion. Women are incredibly vulnerable in the locker room. They should never be forced to act in spite of their instinct to protect themselves from men in these types of circumstances.

    For (b), the KY episode was in the girls locker room in a public high school. It caused massive disruption. Obviously, the law has not really begun to accommodate transpeople so there are only isolated instances, but as the law becomes more favorable to their cause, more disruption will occur.
    Would you agree that at a certain point in the transitioning process, transpeople are vulnerable when forced to use the facility of their birth gender? Since that certain point cannot be made into law due to its nature, allowing anyone who identifies as trans seems like the best compromise. Really, I would think that the taboo alone would be enough of a deterrent.

    The KY incident and the surrounding concerns are culturally relative because other cultures have coed locker rooms and don't have whatever rampant problems you are imagining.

    Neurology is really science. Dabbling was the wrong word and I apologize for using it. I know what you're doing is more than that. You're assuming that because I keep returning to our ethical divide it's because I'm dodging your points. Neurological science is excellent and profoundly interesting. However, there is still a great deal of mystery, and I think it's intellectually dishonest to think otherwise.

    Depression has been a subject of neurological study for decades. Billions of dollars have been poured into it. We are told it's an imbalance of dopamine, norepinephrine, and serotonin, or perhaps it's a deficiency in the chemical synapse. Neurotransmission has been studied to death on this issue, yet depression is not cured. Electrotherapy is still in use today as a last resort because the medical community is at a loss. To be fair, depression medication is met with some success, but it certainly doesn't "cure" depression.

    In the world of thoughts and feelings (e.g. gender disphoria), you cannot ignore the psychological component. I sense you are doing just that. In that way, the science is subjective, not in terms measuring neurological activity, but in terms of understanding what it means. There is a strong interpretive element that exists that isn't applied in equal measure to the genetic components of gender.

    To make the unwell (transpeople) well, your suggested course of action is to change society to legitimize the condition (gender disphoria) and to get their bodies to match their minds. In my estimation, the effect of doing so would make vastly more well people (mind and body consistency) unwell.

    I maintain that the key difference between us is an ethical worldview.
    I do think that like depression, their is most likely a variety of causes that result in gender dysphoria, and also like depression, there is no one treatment. I've been careful when speaking generally in this thread to qualify transitioning as one possible treatment. However, there are two key components. One is that many studies have found female characteristics in male brains and vice versa in transpeople, so there is very good reason to believe that is one posssible aspect, if not one possible cause. Thus, some transpeople undeniably have brains of their identified gender. Second is that medical experts have found that transitioning works as a treatment for many transpeople. It has been studied for quite a while and there are many checks in place to make sure it is the correct path.

    I don't understand the bolded statement. What do you mean "legitimize"? Gender dysphoria is already a legitimate condition. How would "legitimizing" the condition through transitioning harm anyone?

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Psychic Missile View Post
      Would you agree that at a certain point in the transitioning process, transpeople are vulnerable when forced to use the facility of their birth gender? Since that certain point cannot be made into law due to its nature, allowing anyone who identifies as trans seems like the best compromise. Really, I would think that the taboo alone would be enough of a deterrent.
      No doubt they would be vulnerable. Transpeople probably feel vulnerable all their lives, with or without surgery. Honestly, I would never recommend a transman to use the men's locker room. The male and female dynamics are too different, obviously, because men have nothing to fear from women.

      The KY incident and the surrounding concerns are culturally relative because other cultures have coed locker rooms and don't have whatever rampant problems you are imagining.
      That's not a door I'm willing to open in order to see what happens. Plus, it's one thing to have a defined coed locker room and quite another to have a female locker room. I have no problem with coed if it's marketed that way, but there should be an option. I'd be interested in surveys that gauge people's thoughts and feelings regarding their experiences in decidedly female locker rooms being utilized by transwomen (non-transitioned; depends on how "convincing" the surgeries are).

      I do think that like depression, their is most likely a variety of causes that result in gender dysphoria, and also like depression, there is no one treatment. I've been careful when speaking generally in this thread to qualify transitioning as one possible treatment. However, there are two key components. One is that many studies have found female characteristics in male brains and vice versa in transpeople, so there is very good reason to believe that is one posssible aspect, if not one possible cause. Thus, some transpeople undeniably have brains of their identified gender. Second is that medical experts have found that transitioning works as a treatment for many transpeople. It has been studied for quite a while and there are many checks in place to make sure it is the correct path.
      Even if we had concrete knowledge of precisely what is a male brain and precisely what is a female brain in the same way we have more precise knowledge of male/female chromosomal distinctions, I would still opt that hormone therapy and surgical procedures for transitioning not take place. I would honestly be surprised if a person had an exactly male brain with an exactly female body anyway. Like you said, there are many factors at play that determine these things.

      Ultimately, thoughts and feelings being seated in the brain notwithstanding, I believe in restraint. Sometimes, your thoughts and feelings don't matter and you have to suffer your condition for the greater good, whatever it may be. In my view, gender disphoria is not a good thing and it should not be treated as a good thing to be accommodated to the degree you are suggesting.

      I don't understand the bolded statement. What do you mean "legitimize"? Gender dysphoria is already a legitimate condition. How would "legitimizing" the condition through transitioning harm anyone?
      By legitimize, I mean change the mind of society to view transgenderism as a normal condition ethically equivalent to "normal" people with mind/body gender consistency. To make gender a spectrum rather than a dichotomy is an irrational concept that I reject in whole.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by nico View Post
        No doubt they would be vulnerable. Transpeople probably feel vulnerable all their lives, with or without surgery. Honestly, I would never recommend a transman to use the men's locker room. The male and female dynamics are too different, obviously, because men have nothing to fear from women.
        You already said that you think the distress caused by a man using the women's locker rooms is worthy of policy making. So wouldn't the distress caused by a transman using the women's locker room warrant the transperson's use of the men's facilities?

        That's not a door I'm willing to open in order to see what happens. Plus, it's one thing to have a defined coed locker room and quite another to have a female locker room. I have no problem with coed if it's marketed that way, but there should be an option. I'd be interested in surveys that gauge people's thoughts and feelings regarding their experiences in decidedly female locker rooms being utilized by transwomen (non-transitioned; depends on how "convincing" the surgeries are).
        So then why can't there be a redefinition?

        Even if we had concrete knowledge of precisely what is a male brain and precisely what is a female brain in the same way we have more precise knowledge of male/female chromosomal distinctions, I would still opt that hormone therapy and surgical procedures for transitioning not take place. I would honestly be surprised if a person had an exactly male brain with an exactly female body anyway. Like you said, there are many factors at play that determine these things.

        Ultimately, thoughts and feelings being seated in the brain notwithstanding, I believe in restraint. Sometimes, your thoughts and feelings don't matter and you have to suffer your condition for the greater good, whatever it may be. In my view, gender disphoria is not a good thing and it should not be treated as a good thing to be accommodated to the degree you are suggesting.
        What is the basis for your opposition to transition, considering it is approved by medical experts?

        By legitimize, I mean change the mind of society to view transgenderism as a normal condition ethically equivalent to "normal" people with mind/body gender consistency. To make gender a spectrum rather than a dichotomy is an irrational concept that I reject in whole.
        Don't mutations in the genes responsible for sexual dimorphism disrupt that dichotomy?

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Psychic Missile View Post
          You already said that you think the distress caused by a man using the women's locker rooms is worthy of policy making. So wouldn't the distress caused by a transman using the women's locker room warrant the transperson's use of the men's facilities?
          I would not. A transperson's distress is rooted in an abnormal condition that, unfortunately for them, encompasses sexuality. It's not like building ramps to accommodate paraplegic persons. Women (and men) would have to violate themselves in order to make transpersons feel better. I do not believe they need to be coaxed into embracing their disorder, they should be counseled to cope with their feelings, and if possible cultivate thoughts and feelings consistent with their biological gender.

          So then why can't there be a redefinition?
          If there is going to be coed facilities it should be in addition to what's already there.

          What is the basis for your opposition to transition, considering it is approved by medical experts?
          An ethical one, and a decidedly Christian one to boot, I'll be clear about that. Not to mention the fact that a substantial percentage of transgenders report regret after transitioning, in some cases leading to suicide. Also, I doubt there is a large enough consensus on the approval of transitioning to say without question that it should be done, unless it is simply to say that it can be medically accomplished without causing too much harm to the body.

          Don't mutations in the genes responsible for sexual dimorphism disrupt that dichotomy?
          Yes. However, the male/female dichotomy is too self-evident and too overwhelmingly consistent. Humans populate the earth by these very distinctions. When I hear someone say that gender is a spectrum, I wonder how such an extreme bias is not immediately dismissed. It is a dichotomy, with some exceptions.

          Ultimately, it is evident to me that GID should actually be treated as a disorder. It should not be considered normative. Embracing the condition and acting in its favor is a mistake. It should be resisted and tempered, and if possible, fixed.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by nico View Post
            I would not. A transperson's distress is rooted in an abnormal condition that, unfortunately for them, encompasses sexuality. It's not like building ramps to accommodate paraplegic persons. Women (and men) would have to violate themselves in order to make transpersons feel better. I do not believe they need to be coaxed into embracing their disorder, they should be counseled to cope with their feelings, and if possible cultivate thoughts and feelings consistent with their biological gender.
            Let me rephrase my question. If a transman, meaning a person born a woman but identifies as a man, uses the women's facilities, most likely their appearance will be that of a man's if they have started treatment or living as their identified sex. This would presumably cause the same trouble as a cisgender man using the women's facilities. So in the case of transpeople who appear as their identified gender, wouldn't their using the facility of their birth gender cause the same trouble as a cisgender person using the opposite facility?

            If there is going to be coed facilities it should be in addition to what's already there.
            Why?

            An ethical one, and a decidedly Christian one to boot, I'll be clear about that. Not to mention the fact that a substantial percentage of transgenders report regret after transitioning, in some cases leading to suicide. Also, I doubt there is a large enough consensus on the approval of transitioning to say without question that it should be done, unless it is simply to say that it can be medically accomplished without causing too much harm to the body.
            Could you explain this ethical reasoning? Are you saying you believe a secular society should have laws based on what you say are Christian tenets? What is "a substantial percentage" and what is your source? Transitioning is approved by many medical organizations including the American Medical Association and was found to be medically necessary and safe by the Department of Health and Human Services Appeals Board.

            Yes. However, the male/female dichotomy is too self-evident and too overwhelmingly consistent. Humans populate the earth by these very distinctions. When I hear someone say that gender is a spectrum, I wonder how such an extreme bias is not immediately dismissed. It is a dichotomy, with some exceptions.

            Ultimately, it is evident to me that GID should actually be treated as a disorder. It should not be considered normative. Embracing the condition and acting in its favor is a mistake. It should be resisted and tempered, and if possible, fixed.
            My point is that the exceptions partly concern transpeople. GID/gender dysphoria are disorders. They cause distress to those individuals. The treatment may involve transitioning, which would be resisting, tempering, and fixing GID/GD.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Psychic Missile View Post
              Let me rephrase my question. If a transman, meaning a person born a woman but identifies as a man, uses the women's facilities, most likely their appearance will be that of a man's if they have started treatment or living as their identified sex. This would presumably cause the same trouble as a cisgender man using the women's facilities. So in the case of transpeople who appear as their identified gender, wouldn't their using the facility of their birth gender cause the same trouble as a cisgender person using the opposite facility?
              Yes, and in every case the problem is rooted in the transperson's decision to transition.

              Why?
              Because transpeople should either not transition or use designated coed facilities. Females should be able to use the women's facilities without worrying about the presence of men. Transwomen, I argue, are not female, and never will be.

              Could you explain this ethical reasoning? Are you saying you believe a secular society should have laws based on what you say are Christian tenets? What is "a substantial percentage" and what is your source? Transitioning is approved by many medical organizations including the American Medical Association and was found to be medically necessary and safe by the Department of Health and Human Services Appeals Board.
              Society's laws have always been rooted in a Christian ethic. This Republic is rooted in Protestant Christian principles, specific Christian dogma notwithstanding. Our history and manner of government is too rife with religious infusion to argue that "secular society" is an idea completely divorced from Christian principles. If secular society is not informed by Christianity, then it is informed by something else entirely. The paradigm shift away from Christianity is happening now, but our government was never designed with that trajectory in mind. The District of Columbia is littered with Biblical references. The Ten Commandments are literally etched in stone and wood, namely on the very doors of the Supreme Court.

              This study accords with what's expected of anyone making decisions to embrace a disorder of this kind instead of coping with it. Transition is only proven medically necessary on the basis of granting exception to gender dysphoria. They grant the condition as psychologically immutable, therefore external adjustments ought to follow in order to accommodate the internal reality. This is why I continue to point back to the fundamental difference in ethical philosophy. My view is that the internal reality is irrelevant here. The vast majority comprised of cisgender people should not be caused any manner of violation due to the presence of transgender people in their vulnerable moments. For a man to act like a woman is unethical, regardless of how they think or feel. I do not believe in a hedonist society where individuals are encouraged to "live their truth", as the modern saying goes.

              My point is that the exceptions partly concern transpeople. GID/gender dysphoria are disorders. They cause distress to those individuals. The treatment may involve transitioning, which would be resisting, tempering, and fixing GID/GD.
              Transitioning is the exact opposite of resisting, tempering, and fixing (psychologically). Transpeople should resist their thoughts and feelings that contradict their assigned (which is informed by anatomical and biological observation) gender, and temper them the best they can. If it cannot be fixed by psychiatric care, then they'll simply have to find a way to live with it.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by nico View Post
                Because transpeople should either not transition or use designated coed facilities. Females should be able to use the women's facilities without worrying about the presence of men. Transwomen, I argue, are not female, and never will be.
                Under what criteria?

                Society's laws have always been rooted in a Christian ethic. This Republic is rooted in Protestant Christian principles, specific Christian dogma notwithstanding. Our history and manner of government is too rife with religious infusion to argue that "secular society" is an idea completely divorced from Christian principles. If secular society is not informed by Christianity, then it is informed by something else entirely. The paradigm shift away from Christianity is happening now, but our government was never designed with that trajectory in mind. The District of Columbia is littered with Biblical references. The Ten Commandments are literally etched in stone and wood, namely on the very doors of the Supreme Court.
                Don't you find it immoral to force people who don't subscribe to your brand of Christianity to follow its tenets? Shouldn't any law applying to a variety of people be based on lines of reasoning accessible to anyone as opposed to only accessible to people of a particular religious sect?

                This study accords with what's expected of anyone making decisions to embrace a disorder of this kind instead of coping with it. Transition is only proven medically necessary on the basis of granting exception to gender dysphoria. They grant the condition as psychologically immutable, therefore external adjustments ought to follow in order to accommodate the internal reality. This is why I continue to point back to the fundamental difference in ethical philosophy. My view is that the internal reality is irrelevant here. The vast majority comprised of cisgender people should not be caused any manner of violation due to the presence of transgender people in their vulnerable moments. For a man to act like a woman is unethical, regardless of how they think or feel. I do not believe in a hedonist society where individuals are encouraged to "live their truth", as the modern saying goes.
                Your cited study supplies no causation and does not warn against transitioning, so I don't know what your point is.

                Could you speak more of "internal reality" and how a man acting like a woman is unethical?

                Transitioning is the exact opposite of resisting, tempering, and fixing (psychologically). Transpeople should resist their thoughts and feelings that contradict their assigned (which is informed by anatomical and biological observation) gender, and temper them the best they can. If it cannot be fixed by psychiatric care, then they'll simply have to find a way to live with it.
                So we have an effective and desired treatment for a significant condition that you don't want it made available. It sounds like you're putting your own well-being ahead of an unwell person's. I wouldn't want someone who believes vaccines cause autism to decide whether other people can get vaccinated, and this seems like an identical situation. I'm still confused as to why you think your opinions should be held above those of medical professionals.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Psychic Missile View Post
                  Under what criteria?
                  I would refer to our previous discussion.

                  Don't you find it immoral to force people who don't subscribe to your brand of Christianity to follow its tenets? Shouldn't any law applying to a variety of people be based on lines of reasoning accessible to anyone as opposed to only accessible to people of a particular religious sect?
                  The same could be said of you and your willingness to force others to accept deviant behavior. As for me, it depends on the tenets. To certain dogma such as the virgin birth or the divinity of Christ, then no, I wouldn't. But the moral precepts the proceed from Christianity, it stands to reason that I would. If not Christian morality then what other kind? I would only subscribe to an ethic I believe in, so why would I defer to some other kind that I do not?

                  Your cited study supplies no causation and does not warn against transitioning, so I don't know what your point is.
                  You asked for me to supply a study to substantiate the claim I made earlier. I did what you asked and it supported my claim. If your concern is causation then be prepared to accept the same criticism should you cite research in support of your own views. No doubt a link could have been made if the researches had tasked themselves to do so.

                  Could you speak more of "internal reality" and how a man acting like a woman is unethical?
                  Same reason a man shouldn't act like a child, or a child an adult, or an adult an equal to his elder or professional superior without appropriate deference to their position. A man acting like a woman is an affront to sound order in society.

                  So we have an effective and desired treatment for a significant condition that you don't want it made available. It sounds like you're putting your own well-being ahead of an unwell person's. I wouldn't want someone who believes vaccines cause autism to decide whether other people can get vaccinated, and this seems like an identical situation. I'm still confused as to why you think your opinions should be held above those of medical professionals.
                  Whether it's an effective treatment is debatable, but even so it's at the cost of a parent losing their son/daughter, a spouse their husband/wife, a sibling their brother/sister, not to mention the restructuring of laws that violate the conscience of women and men in their vulnerable moments.

                  What you and I believe regarding wellness are different, thus the ethical divide. Medical professionals making positive claims about the health benefits of "transition" are themselves victims of an errant worldview motivating the research. It's no different than the extreme example of Hitler's eugenics. Science and research motivated by worldview. My opinions are grounded in a fixed ethical position derived from a biblical worldview. Not only do I believe the Bible to be true but it accords well with reality. Transgenderism does not. No doubt you disagree on both accounts.

                  I feel that our discussion is winding down, as we are beginning to repeat ourselves here. I have nothing new to say and I sense your line of questioning is aimed at a point you wish to make, which is fine, but I'm not interested. If there is something new I could answer I'd be happy to do it, otherwise this is probably the end for me. What do you think?

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by nico View Post
                    I feel that our discussion is winding down, as we are beginning to repeat ourselves here. I have nothing new to say and I sense your line of questioning is aimed at a point you wish to make, which is fine, but I'm not interested. If there is something new I could answer I'd be happy to do it, otherwise this is probably the end for me. What do you think?
                    I do actually have a few short, final questions that I think would wrap up the discussion by summarizing our opinions. I would consider the topic closed if you answer them. If you don't feel like answering them that's fine too. All questions concern the appropriateness of transitioning as a treatment for gender dysphoria/gender identity disorder.

                    1. How is your opinion falsifiable?

                    2. Why should people of another religion think as you do?

                    3. Can you point to historical or scientific evidence that shows the negative consequences of society going against your advice and the positive consequences of society following your advice?

                    My answers:

                    1. I would rethink my position if it were found that transexuality and gender dysphoria have nothing to do with male neurology in a female body or vice versa.

                    2. Because the science is as equally accessible to them as it is to anyone else.

                    3. The common reports of high satisfaction and the rarity of dissatisfaction with transitioning, as well as the high suicide rate (about 40%) pre-op and the low suicide rate (about 4%) (comparatively) post-op, in addition to the lack of any harm in non-US countries with a greater societal acceptance of transitioning.

                    Comment

                    Related Threads

                    Collapse

                    Topics Statistics Last Post
                    Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                    16 responses
                    140 views
                    0 likes
                    Last Post One Bad Pig  
                    Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                    53 responses
                    365 views
                    0 likes
                    Last Post Mountain Man  
                    Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                    25 responses
                    112 views
                    0 likes
                    Last Post rogue06
                    by rogue06
                     
                    Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                    33 responses
                    197 views
                    0 likes
                    Last Post Roy
                    by Roy
                     
                    Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                    84 responses
                    364 views
                    0 likes
                    Last Post JimL
                    by JimL
                     
                    Working...
                    X