I never said you were transphobic... I simply put you in MY grouping.

---

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace." Jimi Hendrix

What, in this thread, gave you the impression that anyone really cares about how people identify themselves? The entire discussion is about the expectations (or lack thereof) trans persons place on other people regarding how Male and Female are to be defined, and the pronouns that reference those definitions.

---

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W

So if I understand you correctly, "accepting" a person means you accept that they have an issue and won't cause trouble for them.

But you will not accept their point of view on their issue, and will use pronouns that conform to your definition of their gender, not their definition.

Do I have that right?

Hmm. Maybe I've misread several of these posts.

My issue boils down to this: It's incredibly important to a trans person how their gender is identified. It's not that important how you personally want to identify a trans person. So if I person feels strongly that he is a "he," why would you think twice about calling him "he?"

If one or two people have felt they were the wrong biological sex, then maybe I could dismiss it as a mental illness. But when tens of thousands of otherwise "normal" people say they aren't the sex their genitals say they are, I think it merits reexamining what we mean by gender.

Stomping your foot and saying, "It means what it's always meant" isn't good enough.

I'm not following your point, but I will say that you cannot be accepting to a degree. Either you are, or you aren't. That includes gendering a trans person to the way they wish to be gendered. If you cannot use a simple pronoun, then in MY ratings you fall into cat 2.

How others perceive someone, I cannot say.

---

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace." Jimi Hendrix

You're describing tolerance, at a minimum. Treating them no differently from others, or not considering their gender issues in deciding how you want to interact with them, would be acceptance.


Nope.

"But you will not accept their point of view as correct on their issue, and will use pronouns that conform to an objective, established definition of their gender, not their self-serving subjective definition."

Now you do.

---

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W

In other words, he doesn't care how you identify, he only cares how you were born.

---

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace." Jimi Hendrix

Ah, I see. It's the definition of "objective, established definition" that is the crux here.

First off, I would say that if tens of thousands of people are using the definition in new way, it might not be called an objective definition anymore.

Secondly, I think it's fair to say that the definition is evolving, as all definitions do. You may argue that it hasn't evolved enough for you to start using it in the new sense yet. I might argue that it's already evolved enough for its use in trans people, as they would prefer it, to be apt.

Because it's redefining a useful descriptive term based entirely on how one wishes to be perceived, and it's wholly unnecessary for acceptance of transgender individuals.

What's the threshold, or definition, even, of "mental illness" in terms of population percentage, and really, why should that matter? No one's arguing that it isn't a real condition that people struggle with. It's fine to reexamine what gender entails, and I think we're at a point now where most people understand that rigid categories and expectations are not useful for everyone. That doesn't mean we should wholly redefine what Male and Female mean, though, and expect everyone to abandon those useful descriptors.

Would it not make more sense to create a third Trans category, rather than insist that we call trans men Female, and vice versa? That, to me, would exemplify Trans Acceptance, far more than would stripping Male and Female of all actual meaning and utility.

---

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W

Out of curiosity, why does this matter so much to you?

Not the same thing, but I have a friend whose daughter was given the name "Sarah" at birth. 10 years later, she now wants to be called "Tina." No legal name change, just call her Tina. By all standards in legal society, her name is Sarah, but everybody calls her Tina because she prefers it and because it's no big deal to them, even though it's not technically "correct."

This seems similar. It may not be objectively "correct" but why does it matter to you?

Edited to add: Meh. You just answered that question. I disagree, but I understand your answer.

---

''The enemy isn't conservatism. The enemy isn't liberalism. The enemy is bulls**t.''

—Lars-Erik Nelson

In the grand scheme of things, it matters very little to me. It's not a hill I'm ready to die on; I'm just explaining why I think it's reasonable to expect some cis supporters of the trans community to hold to the factual usage of the term without intending offense. That's it.

Not the same thing at all, and I explained to vitus early on in the thread why. Names are assigned, unlike gender, at birth, and used for personal identification, not categorical classification. If someone wants to change their legal name, then their new name is their legitimate identifier.

---

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W

Not to be pedantic (but I guess I am), but there's been no legal change to the name. Just "call me Tina." Maybe she *can* make it legal, but if she hasn't, it's really just a matter of personal preference.

If there's no harm in calling a trans male "she," why be offensive and refuse to do it? It all seems so pointless.

---

''The enemy isn't conservatism. The enemy isn't liberalism. The enemy is bulls**t.''

—Lars-Erik Nelson

By "accepting" I mean acknowledging that they are valid as a person (i.e. not less than), and deserving of the same rights and privileges as everyone else, including the right to decide for themselves what to wear, how to identify themselves, and (in general) what to do with their own bodies.

I don't view acceptance of the person as requiring me to also accept their objectively inaccurate categorization of themselves as being factually true.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Substitue alcoholic for transgender. Tens of thousands of alcoholics might claim they "need" alcohol. The fact that they claim it doesn't make it so, nor does it change the meaning of the word "need." And being accepting of an alcoholic, with all his flaws, doesn't mean you're somehow obligated to also accept that he actually does need alcohol, nor does it require you to indulge his illness.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Not pedantic, just redundant. ;)

One is a personal identifier, the other is categorical. The individual should retain the agency to identify themselves by the personal label of their choosing. Individuals don't have agency in the realm of biological gender.

If I decide that I now identify as Hispanic, I'm free to change my name to Geraldo Morales, and it's reasonable to ask people to call me by my new name (we do it routinely via marriage). It's not reasonable, however, to expect others to refer to me as Hispanic, or for me to list that ethnicity on an official government record. I simply don't have that authority, and I shouldn't expect people to redefine what Hispanic means to suit my personal needs.

---

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W

What does acceptance mean to you? Serious question, not a flame.

---

War is god

I'm not sure really. It's more common courtesy than anything. I don't expect people to make a big deal out of it, just treat me with decency.

---

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace." Jimi Hendrix

Both Slowguy and Sphere identify as someone who is accepting of transgenders. Shouldn't you accept that rather than force your own perspective upon them? Shouldn't you practice what you preach?

I'm not forcing anything on anyone. They are free to feel however they want. I'm simply grouping them into my grouping based on my past history. They say they accept but refuse to use pronouns that the person identifies with, which is their prerogative, I just don't agree.

---

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace." Jimi Hendrix

Thanks.

I'm not quite sure what to make of identity politics. I support equality for all, regardless of gender or race, but my issue with the current movement is that there's no end in sight because there's no standard goal (correct me if I'm wrong). Here's what I mean:

The essence of identity politics is that no individual should be categorized, boxed up and packaged according to some immutable characteristic. Every individual should be free to be and think whatever she or he wants (or whatever they want), free of social impediment. But, under that system, there's simply no end in sight because the "standard" for what constitutes an impediment would exist as defined by each individual, and we all know how uniformly people think... What you deem to be acceptance is going to fall short in someone else's mind, and so long as someone else deems something to be an impediment (even if only imagined or made up) then that person will always get to claim that there's an "ism" at hand (thereby perpetuating moral handwringing and guilt). This is particularly pointed because we're talking about social issues, in which ivory tower theorists in _________ Studies programs are conjuring things even where they don't exist (see, e.g., the wage gap theory, which is really an exercise in competing accounting methods). (And that raises another issue: Statistics are a lie. They're subjective, massaged and fudged to support whatever their progenitor's position is. Unfortunately, they're relied upon heavily these days, cited as gospel by those who want them to be accepted as the objective truth.)

Soon we'll get into the demands for reparations due to every non-binary white male. That's the iceberg that lurks underneath all this politicking. You'll see. Until reparations are paid, "ism" will be the impediment and anyone who opposes reparations will be an "ist" to be hated and shamed.

An aside is that I have no idea what this will do to the U.S. political parties. Currently, the Dems are the party of the identity politics movement and the Dems' constituent parts are aligned, but the movement is in its relative infancy and money isn't at issue yet. I expect the party's constituent parts to begin warring among themselves (likely when relative values for reparations become an issue), and who knows what comes next?

[/Meandering thoughts off./]

---

War is god