I don’t think just writing it down meets any of those standards 
Or perhaps, God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit might prefer to be ‘non-binary’. 
3 Likes
Your use of rationalise is akin to ‘understand’. And I’m saying you making sense of it is not necessary. If you have a neighbour who likes to wear a top hat throughout the summer, you don’t need to rationalize it. It is what it is. Live and let live.
Many of us would be happy with that, but it seems a small number think that we have it all wrong, and we need to change for them to get the recognition that makes them feel happy (for now).
1 Like
Are you assuming I don’t? However undergoing surgery and a cocktail of chemicals is not for one minute like wearing a top hat either.
I am happy if they find the love they want, understanding my nephew/niece and friend is to say the least puzzling. I saw a headline today that Emma Watson is going to Oxford to study with the hope of becoming a doctor, that would be an interesting biology lecture.
1 Like
Expanding on @Ancient_Mariner 's earlier comment, for me there are two linked problems.
The first is the ideology itself. At first, trans people just wanted not to be persecuted for being different. Who could reasonably disagree with that? “Live and let live.” Of course.
Then the request was to be “accepted for what they were”. Almost everyone would want to be kind - certainly, everyone on SF! - and so it looked like the request could be satisfied by a “live and let live” approach.
That wasn’t possible, however, because the request “accept me for what I am” led, logically, to considering such people as having a mental disorder, which was not at all what they wanted.
The third step had to be the imposing of trans ideology on society as a whole. For example, “You will use my pronouns, or you will be subject to disciplinary proceedings and potentially sacked.” “You will let a biological male use women’s facilities irrespective of the feelings of women using them, because the trans woman’s feelings are paramount.” That merely a continuation of men telling women what they could and couldn’t do, with the added ingredient of telling them how they should think. This is what I think is harmful, and problem number 1.
That created an environment where the very idea that gender dysphoria/incongruity could be a mental illness could not be discussed (see above, eg Helen Webberley).
It also freed the idologues to conduct irreversible surgery (usually including sterilisation) on children, who were unable to give informed consent, which is for me problem number 2.
4 Likes
We have a friend whose wedding photos I took in the 90s who divorced and transitioned f-m. They were not a pretty woman, and made a believable small-framed male figure. They since have a partner who was clearly once male, now presenting as female, and have been together a long time and seem happy together.
And understanding my (26 year old high-functioning) autistic nephew is puzzling but it doesn’t lead me to question at all his right to live as he pleases, If he wants no friends or partner, it might seem lonely but he knows what he wants.
I don’t understand your reference to Emma Watson.
1 Like
Porridge:
That wasn’t possible, however, because the request “accept me for what I am” led, logically, to considering such people as having a mental disorder, which was not at all what they wanted.
That does not at all ‘lead logically’. If I told you I was gay and wanted to be recognized as such, would you consider that I had a mental disorder? If I said was asexual? What business is it of anyone how I see myself, if it doesn’t impose on others?
Porridge:
The third step had to be the imposing of trans ideology on society as a whole. For example, “You will use my pronouns, or you will be subject to disciplinary proceedings and potentially sacked.” “You will let a biological male use women’s facilities irrespective
of the feelings of women using them, because the trans woman’s feelings are paramount.” That merely a continuation of men telling women what they could and couldn’t do, with the added ingredient of telling them how they should think. This is what I think is
harmful, and problem number 1.
You state the issue of pronouns as one extreme step. Would you agree that if you transitioned yourself to the other gender, went through surgery and ‘lived’ as that gender in the world for 20 years, it would be reasonable to expect to be referred to by correct pronouns? If you look like a man, live as a man, have a man’s name but someone at work insisted repeatedly on calling you ‘her’, would that not be offensive and hurtful? We’re not talking about one accidental slip of the tongue. And then what if someone insists on using the incorrect term for you, as a way to demean and mock you? What then? That’s where disciplinary action comes in, just as it would if you insisted on calling female coworkers ‘tarts’ or ‘broads’ or a colleague if colour by some racial epithet.
I had a friend years ago who changed her name at 16 from Jill to Lauren and was annoyed if people repeatedly forgot. But no one said “too bad, you were born as Jill” or “I’m not changing my name for you on principle.”
Please, everyone, keep in mind that in every step of our societies, there have been stages where some oppressed minority has struggled for rights and respect, and many in our world have given arguments for why they are asking for too much. Suffragettes, abolition of slavery and the civil rights movement, women’s lib, gay rights. All were marginalized and ridiculed for a time. Now it is gender beyond a binary ‘birth’ role. Which side of history do you want to be on? When your kids or grandkids ask in 20 years, do you want to have to say, “I mocked it as a cult and focused on a few children getting surgery or restroom discomfort to dismiss the wishes of a whole population”?
2 Likes
Interesting.
What are you views on the circumcision of children for non-medical reasons?
One source of difficulty often comes when the individual looks like a man, moves like a man, talks like a man but wears women’s clothing. Even more difficult when they show what appears to be sexual interest in women and also wants to use women’s facilities. It stops being about their choice of lifestyle and becomes an issue for wider society because it affects others around them.
Live and let live is a two way street.
My experience is that women transitioning to men usually blend well, but men trying to become women is usually unconvincing.
And I’ve seen this mentioned so many times with no data on how often this has happened, if ever. One ex-colleague in Canada ha twice only leaned in the UK case of the convicted rapist who then transitioned to female (and she didn’t just say “consider me a woman and put me in a women’s prison”).
Aside from that extreme case, where are the numbers on men going into women’s facilities and ‘expressing an interest’ in women? We can’t create policies entirely based on imagination.
I’m against it. I myself was circumcised but it was a different time. We didn’t have my son circumcised. But you know, if he as a 12 year old or 15 year old minor expressed a consistent and reasoned wish to do so, I’m sure my wife and I would eventually support his wishes. You can say that anyone under 16 or 18 is a minor and unable to give informed consent but at that age, they are not entirely mentally unformed.
But that brings us back to this huge argument against the whole gender identity field. And the numbers of young people who are having surgery is miniscule. How many do you think in the US in a population of 341 million are having surgery? There are about 40 million between 12 and 18 (US Census data). In that age range there were 405 surgeries in 4 years. And very few of those were to remove genitals or construct ‘alternate’ genitals.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2808707
We really are not talking of a massive wave of thousands of ‘children’ every year. And why don’t we give these families a little credit, that they don’t rush into this or do it for ‘trendy’ or political reasons. These are parents protecting the best interests of their own children.
First, so you know personally anyone who really fits all these criteria? I lived and worked in Vancouver, a diverse city with a large gay and transgender population, and I can honestly say I don’t think I encountered anyone like that. Maybe once but not in a situation that require me to decide on a way to address or consider them.
But in a wider context, in what way is this ‘difficult’? You can’t tell that they clearly want to be considered woman? Or you can but you don’t feel they deserve to have that identity respected because they didn’t convince you? Just accept them for they feel strongly they are. It costs you and I nothing.
Isn’t the accepted medical age for the human brain closer to 25?
Do you mean for the termination of major formation? There’s no solid line but even if there is, what is the relevance here? Are we saying that no one can consent to anything until that age? We can’t vote due to the lasting damage we could do to society? Not risk your life by joining armed forces? Not drive a car since we can’t really appreciate the complexities and seriousness?
I think part of the problem is that we consider this surgery as ‘not medically necessary’. Consider, for example, surgery to correct legs not growing enough due to problems at the growth plates of the long bones. The young person will not die without the surgery and they won’t even be disabled. Just quite short. The possible complications of any surgery and anaesthesia could cause someone opposed to say it isn’t worth the risk. But to that person (well under 18), it is psychologically critical. And for transgender youth it is the same. Levels of depression and suicidal thoughts are extremely high in this population.
As long as a medical team (including a social worker and psychiatrist) concur with the youth AND their parents, who are we to second guess their decision, from a distant abstract position.
The minimum ages for voting, joining the military and operating a motor vehicle the public highway seem to correlate nicely with the agreed end of puberty when all those hormones have calmed down and you have basically reached adulthood.
Irreversible elective surgery to change your body before this point isn’t logical.
You just said 25 but you don’t see the inconsistency with assigning many other rights and ability to consent with ages well below that. 16 does not equal 25 by any stretch of the imagination. Going into the army and possibly being killed or maimed is rather more serious than taking puberty-retarding drugs (the majority of ‘Gender affirming care’) Many people before 18 (and therefore categorized as ‘children’ by those opposed to any of this) get all sorts of permanent surgery including breast augmentation and breast reduction ( which is actually the majority of the Gender Care surgeries happening to minors). So where are all these people when it is surgery for nonmedical purposes on ‘cis’ minors?
This has enraged me for years. Before we go after the few dozen trans kids on puberty blockers (because of course no one says a peep about the cis kids who take them), and while it’s obviously incredibly important we all speak out about the barbaric practice of female genital mutilation, let’s also end the practice of male genital mutilation for religious or cultural grounds.
5 Likes
Yes, it went from being a religious practice of a minority to the dominant ‘normal’ practice, with of course some ‘evidence’ to back up some utility (slightly lower level of genital ‘sexual’ infections due to better hygiene). And then no one even notices it.
I will say that while I am against all genital modification/mutilation for non-medical reasons, female genital mutilation is far worse as the purpose isn’t even neutral; it is intended to deaden sexual pleasure by excising the clitoris, to ‘tame’ women’s sexuality. With long term pain and other consequences. Men are not equally brutalized which is not surprising in a man’s world.
1 Like