Instead, they are used to simply categorize individuals in a way analogous to the categories man and woman.

Fair enough.

I guess I’m just pissed off that bigoted assholes like Matt Walsh get to appear “sane” to the general public because of (what I see as) miscommunication. I felt similar feelings about “defund the police,” even though I was on their side. If it confuses me, I assume it confuses a lot of others who are not at all “anti-trans”, and that’s a shame.

I still think it’s a PR mistake, but I leave those decisions to the trans community ultimately.

The imposition of gender-selective pronouns on a whole lot of people who don't make that part of their own self-identification process. — Pantagruel

What’s the problem? Maybe my legal name is Michael but I prefer to go by a different name. Asking you to call me by this other name isn’t asking for special treatment, and is hardly a burden on you.

The chaos of redesigning all public bathrooms to accommodate a plethora of gender-identities. — Pantagruel

Nothing needs to be redesigned.

The exposure of children to these issues in school at a very young age. — Pantagruel

In what way? Children have been “exposed” to the difference between cis men and cis women for all of human history, what does it matter if trans men and trans women are also recognised?

What’s the problem? Maybe my legal name is Michael but I prefer to go by a different name. Asking you to call me by this other name isn’t asking for special treatment, and is hardly a burden on you. — Michael

Exactly. Ask me to do it and I will. Don't enforce a society-wide mandate of pronomial designation.

Nothing needs to be redesigned. — Michael

I beg to differ. The city of Toronto is in the process of refurbing bathrooms in its public libraries for this reason. Some people complained because there were urinals available in trans-designated washrooms. Others complained after they took them out.

In what way? Children have been “exposed” to the difference between cis men and cis women for all of human history, what does it matter if trans men and trans women are also recognised? — Michael

There's recognition and there's education. Undoubtedly children could be educated on the virtues of Hasidic Judaism, or veganism, or any number of other things also. But is it necessary?

There's recognition and there's education. Undoubtedly children could be educated on the virtues of Hasidic Judaism, or veganism, or any number of other things also. But is it necessary? — Pantagruel

Yes, when the goal is to reduce/prevent/remove the development of misinformed, irrational hatred of a minority group, particularly a mostly non-violent, non-threatening minority group, such as trans folks.

I've no problem with transgenders, but just out of curiousity, do you think this is normal?

Because I think that's the part that people interpret as threatening, aggressive, etc.

In addition to things like attempting to control speech. I would consider that deeply objectionable.

I'm sure (ergo, I hope) these things aren't indicative of the 'trans minority' as a whole, but these are the things people are confronted by in the news,

A portion of the trans minority seems to have gone off the deep end, and that portion remains very loud. A PR problem perhaps, as people have mentioned earlier.

I've no problem with transgenders, but just out of curiousity, do you think this is normal? — Tzeentch

That's drag queens, not transgenderism.

And I'm not sure what you mean by normal. It's certainly not common, as drag queens are a minority.

That's drag queens, not transgenderism. — Michael

Fair enough.

I don't think most people will be able to make that distinction and consider them at the very least closely related.

And I'm not sure what you mean by normal. — Michael

Do you think letting hypersexualized cross-dressing men/women 'educate' children under the age of 10 is normal?

I will give you my opinion in more detail tomorrow, as I am away to enjoy my Saturday night but I would first ask you, do you have a list of characters that a person might dress up as, that you would find acceptable or 'normal' for reading stories to children and ones that you would find unacceptable or 'abnormal?'
What criteria would you use to include a character on or off such a list?

Do you think letting hypersexualized cross-dressing men/women 'educate' children under the age of 10 is normal? — Tzeentch

I still don't know what you mean by "normal". Do you mean "appropriate"?

Probably not. But then I also don't think it's appropriate for someone dressed liked this to teach children under the age of 10.



Of course it's then a reach to then be opposed to topless firemen in general.

What criteria would you use to include a character on or off such a list? — universeness

The list - obviously- wouldn't include hypersexualized characters like 's hunky fireman.

Yes, when the goal is to reduce/prevent/remove the development of misinformed, irrational hatred of a minority group, particularly a mostly non-violent, non-threatening minority group, such as trans folks. — universeness

I think that the people who hate trans folks are also the people who hate a whole lot of other folks too. And I think that group is also a minority, just an really obnoxious minority. Which is kind of what I find trans is becoming, also no doubt due to just a relatively few loud voices. Nevertheless, this is what comes of letting a minority speak for a majority, whether a minority of "squeaky wheels" within a small group, or the small group for the large. The principle is the same.

Five years ago, I was positively disposed to the issue, but the way it has been weaponized, anything to do with trans now has a really negative aura from me. Previously, had the opportunity arisen, I would have strongly defended any trans person I saw or knew was subject to prejudice (as I have defended vulnerable people in the past). I no longer feel like that. My goodwill has been alienated.

The issue is not that a man wants to dress as woman, but that he expects to be treated like one, spoken about as if he was one, and be given access to things, places, and spaces designed specifically for women. Its demand for conformity and special treatment makes transgenderism an authoritarian and anti-social ideology, which is a shame because it reflects also upon the innocent and those struggling with dysphoria.

Its demand for conformity and special treatment makes transgenderism an authoritarian and anti-social ideology, which is a shame because it reflects also upon the innocent and those struggling with dysphoria. — NOS4A2

Absolutely. Although transgenderism is more of a symptom of the direction in which society is evolving, in that any and all groups will aspire to a special social status. In essence, if you don't belong to a recognized and approved subculture, you will be at a disadvantage, as you lack that voice of advocacy.

I think it's important to recognise that transgender as an identity is more comparable to the disabled, women, children, the mentally ill and others, whose needs require societal change. Calling for toilets that accommodate trans people might be comparable to calling for ramps to increase accessibility for people in wheelchairs. It's not that people in wheelchairs are demanding special consideration because they feel entitled to it, but that as a practical consideration, they need ramps. Identities that don't "need" anything, so, there's no special entitlement for them to ask for.

That doesn't mean that everything people are asking for trans people to have is justified, or that everything labelled "transphobia" is reasonable, in fact, I have a lot of issues as well. However, it's not reasonable to construe changes accommodating trans people as a result of a special privilege, compared to other identities. Those other identities don't have any needs that aren't being met, it's completely different. It's a unique circumstance, with unique issues.

Sure. And in this paternalistic sense, I think that protective-supportive measures are warranted. Society as a whole should be supportive of all views, but not all sub-groups can possibly be treated identically. Like or not, biological sex gender identification is a statistical reality, and organizing and managing things on a large scale along those lines is practical and valid. Exceptions and protections are reasonable and necessary. But you can't just decide to implement new norms. Tolerance is the only norm required for any reasonable sub-culture to flourish.

It's not about treating groups identically, but the exact opposite, some groups need more assistance than others. Groups who don't have any special needs can work with just tolerance because they are largely self-sufficient and don't require special treatment. Also, trans people are disadvantaged in many ways, and rather than construing their special treatment as advantaging them, the aim could be better thought of as just increasing inclusivity and equality by allowing trans people to have their needs met. As compared to other groups, who are already having their needs met, because they don't have any special requirements.

This has nothing to do with the "statistical reality" because I am not advocating for any position on public toilets*. I am simply addressing your comparison between identities, and your construing of trans people having more needs as some kind of perverse entitlement for better treatment. If your position was to acknowledge that trans people aren't like other groups because they have special needs, but to say that despite this, meeting their needs can sometimes be impractical, that's fine, you could be right. As I said, I don't agree with many of the measures being taken to accommodate trans people either.

Sure. I guess not having any special identity, I just wonder, as I said, about being disenfranchised by not having a cultural-advocacy group. I was baptized Catholic, but I have never enjoined it. I have significant indigenous and Metis blood, and admire the culture, but I don't self-identify as such. I admire and embrace Buddhist precepts, but am not a part of a Buddhist community. I'm really have no overarching social entity, but somehow I manage to have an identity. Does trans really have to be an identity? Can't it just be an aspect of identity, of which there are many?

That’s right. Trans identity is interesting because though it demands the recognition and protection and rights of its own identity, it begets the blurring and obfuscation of others, to the point where men are now celebrated in spaces dedicated entirely to women. It’s the natural progression of identity politics.

That’s right. Trans identity is interesting because though it demands the recognition and protection and rights of its own identity, it begets the blurring and obfuscation of others, to the point where men are now celebrated in spaces dedicated entirely to women. It’s the natural progression of identity politics. — NOS4A2

So either we all are trans or we are bigots.

Identities are not mutually exclusive, and someone who is trans doesn't necessarily have "being trans" as an "overarching social identity" and may perceive their other identities as equally important. Trans does have to be an identity, yes, even if trans people themselves didn't want it to be. Consider situations like dating or sports, where being upfront about being trans mightn't be done out of self-interest, but out of consideration for others.

Although transgenderism is more of a symptom of the direction in which society is evolving, in that any and all groups will aspire to a special social status. In essence, if you don't belong to a recognized and approved subculture, you will be at a disadvantage, as you lack that voice of advocacy. — Pantagruel

The "direction" society is evolving in is recognising that tolerance and treating people equally isn't sufficient. Some groups have special needs, and refusing to meet these needs has negative consequences for that group. Just as tolerating people in wheelchairs doesn't make them not need ramps.

The reality is that trans people are far from a privileged group, and any group which envies the position of trans people must be in a really sorry state. Are they some super social class that everyone else needs to bow down and accommodate? No, that's not even close to the truth. Yes, some groups that need as much help as trans people don't get as much attention, but the solution is for that group to receive the help they need, not for trans people to be as deprived of help as these neglected groups are.

The "direction" society is evolving in is recognising that tolerance and treating people equally isn't sufficient. — Judaka

I would rephrase this as 'failing to recognize that tolerance and treating people equally is sufficient.'

You can't do better than universal equality. And the means thereto need to reflect the goal.

being assigned male (or female) at birth

No one "assigns" a newborn's sex at birth -- they "recognize" sex at birth. The use of the verb "assign" is in support of the contention that sex (like gender) is ambiguous, fluid, changeable, etc.

]Trans ideologues' distortion of language results in screwy messages like this -- instructions for patients at the U of M surgery center:

"Due to the risks of anesthesia, patients of childbearing age who have a uterus will be asked for a pregnancy urine specimen in pre-op, so we ask that you not empty your bladder while waiting in the lobby.

I do agree with the "no bladder emptying in the lobby" part. Another example is instructions that apply to "pregnant persons". It just isn't the case that any odd "person" will happen to be pregnant. It will always be a female.

According to the UCLA Williams Institute of Law, 1.3% of the population is trnasgender (depending on how the data is sliced and diced). What is strange is that terms like "women" are dropped to accommodate the very small portion of the population who were born with a penis and testicles (and don't have a uterus) but who now classify themselves as women.

Vague thought splurges.

There's recognition and there's education. Undoubtedly children could be educated on the virtues of Hasidic Judaism, or veganism, or any number of other things also. But is it necessary? — Pantagruel

I think so. You do get taught about religions for the purposes of normalising them and the people who practice other ones. You get taught about other cultures for that reason too. Same with sexuality. Reducing prejudice in the populace is a noble goal for education, right? So making similar space for transgender people in education makes sense for the same reasons.

Does trans really have to be an identity? Can't it just be an aspect of identity, of which there are many? — Pantagruel

The "have" I bolded there is interesting in your post. Lots of possible meanings, right?

1 ) Ethically "have", ought we treat being trans as a separate identity to being cis?
2 ) Socially "have", are we obliged to treat being trans as a separate identity to being cis?
3 ) Factually "have", is it in reality necessary to treat trans people differently than cis?

There are probably more. There also may be a distinction between treating identities separately and treating people separately? Like it may make sense to distinguish cis identities from trans identities, but that doesn't immediately propagate to treating cis people differently from trans people in every respect. There'll also be a social construction of identity vs individuation+psychogenesis angle which could be pursued there.

1 ) - the above argument about moral education makes some headway there. But there are good and bad reasons/means to treat trans people differently than cis people of course . There are some circumstances where it's right, some circumstances where it's wrong.

I think it'd be epistemically virtuous to treat trans people as separate from cis people - since they face different social issues, there's some evidence their bodies/brains are different (without there being a "male brain" and a "female brain", for clarity), and eg ftm transexuals can get pregnant if they keep the wombs. For reasons of producing knowledge, it's a good idea to keep the distinction.

2 ) - On the one hand, cynically, yes we are obliged. The norms in place compel us. Especially in terms of prejudice. There are social norms which equate natal sex with gender, and gender performance with gendered stereotypes. Anyone who falls through those gaps will be treated differently, and that implies a systemic compulsion to treat them differently.

3 ) - I think this is an ontological question. So who knows. I think the phenomenology associated with trans subjects is different than cis ones. Cis and trans bodies have some functional differences, too. I suppose there's a discussion you could have here about whether even asking this as an ontological question presupposes an objectifying/essentializing/naturalising frame of reference that social constructions+identities can be evaluated in. You could bring in point 2) here.

I remember watching a youtube video from Philosophy Tube which made the point that anti trans prejudice is rooted in some kind of "metaphysical skepticism". That trans people don't "really" exist in some sense. Because the notions of gender identity we're brought up with make them fall through the cracks. Food for thought.

The means do not need to "reflect" the goal, they need to accomplish the goal.

Since you're unconvinced by what I've already said, I daresay it's pointless for me to argue any further.

No one "assigns" a newborn's sex at birth -- they "recognize" sex at birth. The use of the verb "assign" is in support of the contention that sex (like gender) is ambiguous, fluid, changeable, etc. — BC

What is strange is that terms like "women" are dropped to accommodate the very small portion of the population who were born with a penis and testicles (and don't have a uterus) but who now classify themselves as women. — BC

Yes. It’s ridiculous, and it’s detrimental to the trans movement/community.

Makes me feel like I’m living in the Twilight Zone when otherwise rational, intelligent people either subscribe to the former (meaning they believe sex is as ambiguous as gender) or else deliberately obfuscate so as not to concede any ground to potential bigotry — an example being that some people are born with both genitalia, etc.

Almost anything associated with gender I’m in favor of viewing much more broadly. Clothing, behavior, jobs, marriage roles, and so forth. But when it comes to things like pregnancy, must we all go along with the insanity in order to not be deemed transphobic? Again, I really resent having to sound similar to a right-wing bigot.

It’s also frustrating to even be discussing it— but that’s my own fault.

The means do not need to "reflect" the goal, they need to accomplish the goal. — Judaka

That is a frightening thing to contemplate.

I remember watching a youtube video from Philosophy Tube which made the point that anti trans prejudice is rooted in some kind of "metaphysical skepticism". That trans people don't "really" exist in some sense. Because the notions of gender identity we're brought up with make them fall through the cracks. Food for thought. — fdrake

Speaking as someone who has moved from roughly the position of @Mikie and @Pantagruel to a much less trans-sceptical position, I can attest to this.

trans-sceptical position — Jamal

I wouldn’t describe myself that way really. Unless we’re talking about transcending biology, which it seems at least many trans people aren’t claiming. It’s a matter of terminology. If we want to re-define our words, fine— but I honestly think it’s a mistake.

I could be wrong, in the same way as I’m sure there were people in the homosexual community that were against taking over the word “gay.” Turns out that was a good political move. In the meantime, I find myself largely agreeing with the “right,” and it’s irritating.

Speaking as someone who has moved from roughly the position of Mikie and @Pantagruel to a much less trans-sceptical position, I can attest to this. — Jamal

Or maybe it's just indicative of the fact that society supports a spectrum of rationalities, and there are different ways of respecting one another. Self and identity are all well and good, but the concept of the Other as mirror and limit of the self is also essential. The way we treat others is an important feature of who we are, perhaps the most important.

I think so. You do get taught about religions for the purposes of normalising them and the people who practice other ones. You get taught about other cultures for that reason too. Same with sexuality. Reducing prejudice in the populace is a noble goal for education, right? So making similar space for transgender people in education makes sense for the same reasons. — fdrake

Yes, in the context of comparative religion or comparative cultural instruction. Those are fairly advanced subjects. I agree with instruction at this level. More effective for younger learners would be to learn about hate speech in general, without demonizing anyone or thing if that is possible.