Are people too soft today? Will there be consequences?

[GrantSP]

So if you slept with a trans person and didn't know, that would be fine becuase it doesn't matter if they were born male/female? Or would you be totally annoyed like any sane person if you were not into that?

 

Why is that annoying? The person is still who they are and presumably if you are in a position to go to bed with them you would have formed a friendship based on more than physical attributes?

 

To make a judgement on what a person's gender is based solely on physical attributes is very sad and highly inaccurate.

Once upon a time gender was defined by whether the person had XY or XX chromosomes. That's the way I was taught in school. Now I know there is much much more to it.

• Hormone levels. 
• Does the person possess gonads? Which variety?
• Primary characteristics such as genitals
• Secondary physical characteristics: Bodymass (predisposition to fat in certain areas), breasts or lack thereof, musculature, body/facial hair, vocal frequency, skeletal structure
• Other less definable areas such as social conformity or expectations or even preferences in sexuality

So, if someone has a lot of body hair, large shoulders and thin hips, a deep voice and high levels of testosterone are you saying they are male even if they have female genitalia and identify as a woman? Should that person be allowed to take hormone treatment, shave regularly and perhaps surgery to adjust their outward appearance?

Why is that different to a person that has the physical attributes of one gender but inwardly they identify as the other? Isn't that rather presumptive to prioritise the characteristics?

 

Now what if a child was born with the more or less than the "socially acceptable number of" eyes or ears or digits on their hands or feet? Is it wrong to allow them, if they want, to have corrective surgery to allow them to feel better about themselves?

Perhaps a child with missing organs should now be considered: "non-human" simply because they don't match to the "norm"?

 

 

 

something acceptable today like allowing a child to go through surgery to mutilate themselves and change their sexuality is just beyond crazy. The problem is in about 10 years time when we see the trauma something like this might have caused the child, at least two of those groups above will 360 and blame the parents.

Quotes like this just go to show how easily we adhere to erroneous standards even when we think we may be enlightened. Let me re-iterate my view here by correcting the phrasing in these sentences.

 

1. mutilate themselves - In what way exactly is this "mutilation"? A friend of mine had his ears pinned back in primary school, he still has remnants of scars to prove it, is that mutilation?
2. change their sexuality - As we've just established they are not "changing", they are correcting a mishap in genetics that assigned them attributes that don't align with who they are.
3. trauma something like this might have caused the child - Clearly you have very little to do with mental health issues. The "trauma" people suffer in their own mind is often much worse than any physical abnormalities that may afflict them.

Humans are humans regardless of the shapes they come in or even the views they express. People are not "too soft" they are just given more freedom to express support, for or against, certain long-held views. As soon as we start to criticise others because they don't conform to our views we fall foul to the same arrogance they exhibit, only mirrored.

As to the consequences? Consequences to what? Your question is based on an assumption that people are different to what they were previously, I contend they aren't, just more vocal about it.

 

I very rarely engage in discussions of this sort, not because I don't have an opinion, but because it is fraught with the possibilty of hurting someone. If my comments offend anyone I sincerely regret that and apologise. I however felt compelled to say... something.

[Guest]

Why is that annoying? The person is still who they are and presumably if you are in a position to go to bed with them you would have formed a friendship based on more than physical attributes? To make a judgement on what a person's gender is based solely on physical attributes is very sad and highly inaccurate.

Because that matters a hell of a lot. Do you know what a fling is or not? Most people don't care for inaccuracies; ever heard of Tindr or Grindr?

 

So, if someone has a lot of body hair, large shoulders and thin hips, a deep voice and high levels of testosterone are you saying they are male even if they have female genitalia and identify as a woman?

No I don't think I said that. If they were born a woman then they are biologically a female obviously.

 

Should that person be allowed to take hormone treatment, shave regularly and perhaps surgery to adjust their outward appearance?

They can do what they like, but it doesn't change the fact they have a forearm dong and a pump. I don't think I was trying to sway anyone, I was just stating my opinion.

 

Now what if a child was born with the more or less than the "socially acceptable number of" eyes or ears or digits on their hands or feet? Is it wrong to allow them, if they want, to have corrective surgery to allow them to feel better about themselves?

Will there be scars people notice and presumably ask about? Yes there will. I'm not sure what the point is here because someone with an extra toe would probably get more positive attention. I already heard of a Cali surfer with the same thing and I live nowhere near there.

 

mutilate themselves - In what way exactly is this "mutilation"? A friend of mine had his ears pinned back in primary school, he still has remnants of scars to prove it, is that mutilation?

Mutilation describes degrading functions of your own body. Are you telling me they have a perfectly functioning body after surgery and nothing could ever go wrong under said surgery?

 

trauma something like this might have caused the child - Clearly you have very little to do with mental health issues. The "trauma" people suffer in their own mind is often much worse than any physical abnormalities that may afflict them.

Clearly you are wrong. I went through a lot of bad stuff as a child, so I know all about that. What I was obviously talking about, again, is children that might have other undiagnosed mental issues clouding their judgement - or simply because they are going through a phase. Children tend to go through phases because I remember. You sound like you are saying any male child that tries on a dress should be tied up and sent to a surgery table stat. I know you aren't, but it sounds like it to me.:P

 

As to the consequences? Consequences to what? Your question is based on an assumption that people are different to what they were previously, I contend they aren't, just more vocal about it.

No, they really are more annoying now. Even South Park did a whole take on "PC" culture and they are usually always on the money. They ripped it to shreds becuase it's a joke.

 

And don't apologise for your opinions, jeeze. This is what I mean: everyone has to do a curtain call because someone MAY get offended by pretty much nothing. Soft old Grant! ;)

Edited September 6, 2016 by Guest

[baronaatista]

I almost hate to even touch on the topic of 'trans-gendered' but I do feel that this topic is an excellent example of the 'consequences' of this modern victims + demons issue; and it is a modern issue.

 

I in no way wish to belittle or harm the feelings of any person with body dysmorphia, and I absolutely agree that they deserve every amount of rights and compassions that we would apply to anyone else.  Bottom line, they are people; and we are all trapped on this rock, floating around in space together.  To be a conscious creature living through this, aware of your own mortality yet burdened (or gifted) with emotion, morality, intellect (or lack thereof), with a sensation of free will yet almost no control over your environment, genetics/biology, brain chemistry... is absolutely insane if you stop to think about it for just a second.  I view almost any response to being a conscious creature on this planet perfectly understandable.

That is not to say I agree with or endorse any and all states of being - merely that I accept and understand them to the best of my abilities, and I will fully admit that 'the best of my abilities' varies in strength depending on what exactly we're talking about; racism, sexism and violence being subjects I cant find much to 'accept' in.

 

Now all that being said.  I consider it almost on the level of... how can I put this.  To argue that we as a society should treat and refer to a trans-gendered male as a woman, or female as a man, and that pointing out that they are not actually the sex they identify with is somehow offensive...  Or that there might be confusion on the part of the average person as to the correct protocols in certain scenarios... It's childish.  It's equivalent to us being the terrible indulgent parents that never tell their kids no - those kids are almost always snotty little brats, and they grow into terrible, self-obsessed adults.  There is a reason we use the terms male and female and it needs no explanation whatsoever.  That is not to say that I have a problem with trans-gendered people calling themselves whatever the hell they like.  My problem is when they demand that everyone else on earth pretend that the color blue is red.  

This is attention-seeking, childish behavior and it is almost certainly related to their own internal demons; it would be much better to help these people come to terms with themselves and realize that the terminology is simply unimportant, and that as the whole 'trans-gendered movement' is a relatively recent phenomenon, it may take society a while to figure out all the proper protocols - it is simply not as straightforward as many claim it to be.  The trans-gendered female MMA (mixed martial arts) fighter (ie. born a man - with the physique of a very athletic man, fighting in womens MMA) as an example.  Call yourself whatever you like, if someone has a problem with that - **** them!  But if someone doesn't know what to call you, that is not at least exclusively their fault;  usually there is almost no complication in identifying male from female, and you are part of an extreme minority - whether its by choice or by the nature of your brain chemistry - it is in your own best interests to learn how to deal with that.  

None of this - pretty please! - keep in mind is an excuse to mock, or shame, or berate a trans-gendered person.  I really do deliberately attempt to be as compassionate as I can to just about every person on earth...  But we cannot be endlessly indulgent, and it doesn't serve anyone to play this bizarre game of pretend.

Edited September 6, 2016 by baronaatista

[baronaatista]

* when I said this topic was an example of consequences, let me clarify - because ordinarily much of what I just wrote would be equated to some really severe bigotry and almost certainly insults would be hurled, and any sense of a possibility of a conversation would be lost. 

[elenhil]

 

Both your (well, 'your', since you were answering mine) points make me think that you regard modern society as something that should be taken for granted, almost wholesome by default. Thus, when yet another cultural fad clearly clashes with biology, the said fad must take precedence. Am I misunderstanding you?

 

As for the third one, there are plenty of instances of 'matriarchal' or 'equal' societies both in ancient and recorded by anthropologists (among 'primitive' non-Industrial cultures) which should, by your definition, be free from the male-dominant warrior-culture. So cross-cultural studies reveal precisely 'what a woman is' regardless of the particular culture. And pretty much debunk any sort of claim that her special role in or aptitude for nurturing children is a social construct.

[MonoAccipiter]

1: As I'm not really talking about dysphoria (which is evident) there are still other underlying problems that may be linked to dysphoria:

 

2: ... So it seems like a more complex situation than you are suggesting, which was pretty obvious. A lot of these kids are unfit to make any decisions because of other undiagnosed problems.

1: Decide which (see the underlined words) and please use commas/semicolons, this sentence is almost impossible for me to make sense of.

 

2: I have to quote myself from earlier: "the problem is more complex than initially assumed" (see my second post). Making it seem like I have claimed this to be a simple issue seems like quite the red herring. The fact that people who suffer from gender dysphoria also have need of other treatment is not at all surprising. Mental illness isn't at all like normal illnesses, having one can easily make you much more vulnerable to other issues. I wouldn't be surprised if a large portion of the people that suffered from gender dysphoria were preyed on by anxiety or depressive issues, but again, this does not at all remove from the point I made and that the first source you cited (which at the point of writing my last post was the only source you had) also concluded with, namely that the treatment in itself isn't unnecessary, it's just not enough to deal with what is already a very vulnerable demographic by itself. Even non-transgender LGBT youth are subject to a lot of more psychological difficulties than the average person. 

 

"In the presence of severe psychopathology and developmental difficulties, medical [sex reassignment] treatments may not be currently advisable." Who's saying I don't agree with this? Either you're suggesting that all people wanting to change their sex suffer from severe psychopathology and developmental issues or this has no bearing for your initial stance whatsoever. In which case you have moved closer to what I was arguing for under the guise of having said so all along, which is not at all true. Your initial stance was that of comparing sex reassignment surgery for children to them mutilating themselves. With this source you're basically just dismissing the solution to a problem because it isn't perfect, otherwise known as the nirvana fallacy, when neither of these studies have concluded in favor of that...

 

 

1: So you think I go out and seek every trans person then tell them they are not real people or something? If I did that you would have a point, but I don't. So if you slept with a trans person and didn't know, that would be fine because it doesn't matter if they were born male/female? 2: Or would you be totally annoyed like any sane person if you were not into that? :P

1: You're right, it's a belittling opinion, not a belittling act. It still seems odd to write that your point is not to belittle, when that generalization, which still sounds like the "no true Scotsman" argument, achieves virtually nothing else than belittling.

 

2: So I am insane for not agreeing with you now...? That has to be the apotheosis of a poor argument.

 

 

1: As Ess said, left and right doesn't have a definitive definition for each person. 2: My thinking it of it is both very far variations are equally as stupid, and not all of it political. 3: Chimps in the wild and captivity actually.

1: What SRB said was that Americans had twisted those words around so much they have lost their meaning. I still stand by my point which is that these ideas have rather little to do with the traditional political spectrum (e.g. a communist state is not necessarily very gender-neutral).

 

2: This might very well be, but it is no argument. Even if they were, you couldn't dismiss something as absurd just because it was positioned on the wide side of a political wing. That would be a fallacy.

 

3: Yet, clearly less so in the wild, which indicates that nurture has something to say. Just like the Bell Curve and the Flynn Effect (when combined) have done before. Then I also seem to remember this other thing about Homo Sapiens, something about us being unique as a species because we have self-awareness... Which returns us to the argument I made earlier about whether evolutionary effects which is most likely possessed by monkeys as well as humans, would make someone better suited for raising children in modern society. The same goes for gender-attributed behavior, in which, by the way, one can see a rather large variety of behavior between different members of the same sex; how does the animal kingdom's definition of gender behavior encompass the full complexity of the behavior we traditionally attribute to genders today? The animal kingdom here being the environment which also presents us with a rather fluid concept of sex with, amongst other things, males that can be pregnant (link). Then there is also the existentialist argument, which questions whether any such evolutionary effect should have any say over how we behave at all. Existence as opposed to essence, is the foremost quality in any person. This has to do with the self-awareness part of being human, which renders behavioral inheritance from before modern society took form rather inconsequential.

 

@GrantSP: Great points! Especially the musings on how what makes up a gender biologically has changed over the years. I hold that, above all, these things are rather effects a person has to live with than they should be said to define that person. Given that these characteristics are not something a person chooses, I find it strange that we so often give them more weight than the conscious desire inside the person to identify with some attribute or trait. I wouldn't be offended wither, if I happened to sleep with someone who later revealed they had been born as the "wrong sex" (for them - of course). How their previous physical misalignment with their identity would change either who they have been inside, or what they are like right now, I am completely at a loss in determining.

 

@SparrowPrince again:

 

 

Because that matters a hell of a lot. Do you know what a fling is or not? Most people don't care for inaccuracies; ever heard of Tindr or Grindr? 

If it's a fling, by which I assume you mean a relation based purely on a physical attraction, how would the person's past or even how they came to acquire the characteristics you were attracted to, have any meaning at all? The attraction is not to the persona, which is the only thing that can be affected by the person's past, but rather to his or her physical characteristics which remain largely the same (at the time of the attraction) no matter what this person has gone through.

 

 

No I don't think I said that. If they were born a woman then they are biologically a female obviously.

He's not saying you said that. He is challenging your conception of gender by proving that it is tied a lot of more attributes than you think, which also happen to be affected by a lot of genetic mishaps. One can for example be born with an extra chromosome, or one can be born with two different sexual organs, in which sex reassignment surgery is always performed. Now would you define these people as not having a sex at all? Humans can even be born with two different DNAs, that doesn't mean they're two people, just that defining them as something by virtue of a single characteristic doesn't hold up.

 

 

Will there be scars people notice and presumably ask about? Yes there will.

Why is that relevant? Is it better for this person to have other physical characteristics that make them unwell, just because society does not label said characteristics as scars?

 

 

Mutilation describes degrading functions of your own body. Are you telling me they have a perfectly functioning body after surgery and nothing could ever go wrong under said surgery?

Nirvana fallacy again... They probably have a body functioning much better for what it should do (allow them to be comfortable with themselves) and the fact that it could go wrong is absolutely a non-factor. You don't opt out of surgery in treating other illnesses because there is a slight chance that the surgery could go wrong.

 

@baronaatista: 

 

 

Now all that being said.  I consider it almost on the level of... how can I put this. 1: To argue that we as a society should treat and refer to a trans-gendered male as a woman, or female as a man, and that pointing out that 2: they are not actually the sex they identify with is somehow offensive... 3: Or that there might be confusion on the part of the average person as to the correct protocols in certain scenarios... It's childish.

1: How is it childish to argue either that gender identity is much more complex than a traditional societal archetype? How is it childish to realize that gender studies is a miasma of findings that have no such thing as a clear answer to this problem? How is childish to point out how little actual harm would happen upon society if it did this? How is it childish to know that the modern view of epistemology understands that while certain ideas might be part of our current paradigm that does not make them equivalent to truth? In fact, I struggle to see anything childish about anything except your insinuation that holding another opinion than yours is childish.

 

2: Again, by what definition? I have challenged this "truth" on many leves, Grant has challenged it in his last post. The field of psychology disagrees on the topic, the field of biology disagrees on the topic, the field of philosophy mostly leans towards it being completely irrelevant, and it is virtually the same as saying that their decision to change their physical characteristics is pointless. Hence it is actually belittling.

 

3: This I agree that should not be a problem.

 

@elenhil:

 

 

1: Both your (well, 'your', since you were answering mine) points make me think that you regard modern society as something that should be taken for granted, almost wholesome by default. Thus, when yet another cultural fad clearly clashes with biology, the said fad must take precedence. Am I misunderstanding you?

 

 2: As for the third one, there are plenty of instances of 'matriarchal' or 'equal' societies both in ancient and recorded by anthropologists (among 'primitive' non-Industrial cultures) which should, by your definition, be free from the male-dominant warrior-culture. So cross-cultural studies reveal precisely 'what a woman is' regardless of the particular culture. And pretty much debunk any sort of claim that her special role in or aptitude for nurturing children is a social construct.

1: The comma confuses me a bit here. How does taking modern society for granted have anything at all to do with this discussion? Its morality, which I assume is what you refer to by using "wholesome", is also highly inconsequential. What matters is that modern society is the context in which we live our lives, and hence taking "advice" from how we evolved in a completely different context is rather absurd. I fail to see how any of the points I made can be reduced to something as disparaging as a "cultural fad". I deal in arguments, and if said "cultural fad" has better ones backing it than "biology", then obviously it should take precedence. I use quotation marks because biology is not in my opinion equivocal to gender-related evolutionary traits, and I don't want to be misquoted on having dismissed biology as a whole, although I realize you might just have called it that because it's easier to write out (I never used the word in my post except when paraphrasing you).

 

2: I shot myself in the leg by using the Indo-European people as a basis, I admit that. I would like to see the cross-cultural studies that reveal how a woman is the same in matriarchal societies, and that men in societies where they are encouraged to take care of children (of which I admit I do not know any) are "worse" at doing it. However, this does in no way debunk the argument that it is a social construct, because you insinuate that all these cultures have females in the nurturing role (I haven't seen these studies so I do not know) and as such they are not examples of societies where culture has encouraged something else... In any case that is not my preferred argument; I would rather lean on the existence over essence argument, where either alternative would be inconsequential as it is well within the means of any person (and quite within their rights) to transcend any part of their essence. i.e. they would no more choose the societal roles assigned to them than the biological roles assigned to them.

 

EDIT: Fixed a couple of typos.

Edited September 6, 2016 by MonoAccipiter

[Aiyen]

It is somewhat fascinating how labeling is so integral to us. "You are.... " is so dominant, and I think many people fail to see just how deep this goes. This is perhaps also why it evokes so strong emotions when discussed. 

When you look at it rationally it should not really bother anyone that a person is transgender, or gay or what have you. You can have scenarios where you can hit it off with a person, be best friends etc. but once that label comes out into the open they are suddenly to be avoided like the plague. 

 

I will gladly admit that I would probably not be overly enthusiastic about having been with a girl only to find out she was born a guy. I do not really know why, but when I picture the scenario, I just get this feeling. It is the same with gays. I do not mind other people being gay... but once I put up the scenario of myself being it, I just get uncomfortable on some level. 

I guess that in a lot of people this level of uncomfortableness (yes it is a word now) is what lashes out into anger, and from there hate (the whole yoda thing if you will).

I have met people who have really strong opinions about the whole gay thing, and when you try to make them explain just why it is so horrible, they tend to go with the "it is unnatural","it is biologically counter productive", it is in general a lot of things. But it is never that it simply just makes the person really uncomfortable. I guess it just hurts peoples ego to admit that they are scared of something. But then again fear is very irrational most of the time (or is it always.. one thing I have always wondered about).

[baronaatista]

@ Mono - I didn't say that it was childish to argue that there may be levels of nuance the average person is unaware of in regards to gender and identity.  What's childish is to whine when people dont refer to you in whatever manner you wish to be referred, doubly so when you wish to be referred to in a way that cuts against the average persons understanding of gender dynamics.  

Now again I'm not saying that there is no place for growth in society - to have a broader and perhaps more sensitive understanding of gender.  I'm not personally convinced that that is true, but I'm certainly not opposed to it.

 

I'm a lean guy, I don't have big muscles, I do yoga and am much more in touch with my emotions than the average man.  I also have very little of the typical macho posturing (ie defensive walls) that many guys do.  In addition to all of this I am a grown man that loves video games and comic books, and always has, and has nurtured his inner child rather well.  I'm extremely choosy with the women I'll get involved with and as a result I go years in between dating typically.  Do you know how many times I've been called a *** - by both men and women?  Or genuinely mistaken for being gay (that one not so many - I'm not super effeminate or anything, just not super masculine either).  You might say 'well there's nothing wrong with being gay, and you're apparently not anyway, so why should that bother you?'

So it may not surprise you to hear that I have some personal demons that I battle in regards to my apparent lack of masculinity - and how that affects how much women are attracted to me, or how I have a tendency to just lie down for anyone who wants to walk over me sometimes.  So being called a '***' or gay plucks on all those little strings for me.  But that is my BS to deal with, and it would be childish of me to play the victim, and denounce and demonize anyone that doesn't immediately recognize and proclaim my 'straight' sexuality, or who, through various comments, makes me feel less of a man.  Further, learning to deal with these emotions has helped me to grow and change, and feel much more confident and powerful in the world.  There was a time when I could literally not talk to a woman I found attractive, or put my foot down and really mean it.

 

This is my point.  The doting parent, the parent that doesn't want their child to suffer at all, that tells them everything they want to hear and buys them whatever they want - that parent produces horrible children who turn into horrible adults 90% of the time.  

 

This modern elevation of 'victim' status, such that it is essentially considered virtuous to be 'offended' either on the part of a victim or because you yourself have been victimized - does absolutely no one any good at all.  Everyone on earth has insecurities and weaknesses and feelings of anxiety or depression, can be offended and hurt by words and ideas, etc.  The role of the victim is a powerless one, in which it is left up to the rest of society to protect you from your aggressors.  The problem is taking on that relationship usually leaves the victim weaker - less able to cope with the pressures of the world, and more reliant on others for support.  

Edited September 6, 2016 by baronaatista

[MonoAccipiter]

It's pretty commonly held in psychology that the parent that only provides love and no boundaries create secure, but passive children (underachievers) which is what I believe you're getting at. Baumrind called this the permissive parent (Maccoby and Martin called it indulgent parenting). What is important is that they do not advocate that one should be aloof instead, but rather that one should be both demanding and responsive. Hence, it's not as simple as saying that just because punitive parenting often results in troubled children it means that one shouldn't be caring in these things at all. That often results in its own demons (to borrow one of your expressions). There is a middle ground in these things, that I think you're aware of (judging by your first paragraph). 

 

You do seem a bit out of touch with your own words though, because arguing that people should be able to take harassment (which I do think most of these LGBT people are) does not really condone "that we as a society should (not) treat and refer to a trans-gendered male as a woman" (added the not in parenthesis you were suggesting this was childish) or "pointing out that they are not actually the sex they identify". Saying "People grow by struggle" can also be used as an argument for closing down almost any kind of debate on this topic, which is rather brash, if not to mention dangerous. Arguing that one shouldn't react to a misdeed if it goes beyond the average person's understanding of the subject just seems like promoting ignorance, which is no way to make anything better at all. The "average person's understanding of gender dynamics" comes from somewhere too, and it won't change if we don't point out its flaws in public discourse.

 

There's also a fundamental difference between "whining" and taking issue with a commonly held attitude. One can be ready to get over these things on a personal level while still wanting to change it on a societal level, because attitudes are things to be changed. I have also been the target of gay slurs, which I hardly paid or will pay any mind to at all in the future, but I still take issue with my friends using "gay" as a synonym for something stupid or "jew" as a synonym for someone being greedy.

[Nebulous112]

I don't want to touch the transgender debate with a 10-foot pole...honestly, who cares? As long as it doesn't affect me, I couldn't care less what transgendered individuals do. I would prefer my tax dollars didn't go toward their surgery unless a physician considered it medically ncessary, but I am sure some of them would prefer that their tax dollars don't go toward my lung cancer treatments in 30 years if I continue to smoke. I guess it evens out. ;-)

 

However, to respond to the original post, I agree that people get far too offended in this day and age. If my being a white, straight, male offends someone, then they need to get their head examined. I don't care about someone else's race, gender, sexuality, etc. It doesn't affect me, so why should I care? More to the point, why should someone else care enough to demonize me because I am not a part of one of these minority groups? I just don't understand the thought process. Haven't we learned yet to try and judge individuals whenever possible?

 

By the way, I had to look up what "cis" means...apparently this means identifying with the gender you were born with. I guess I am that, too...I am honestly surprised there is a word for this. :-P

 

Anyway, political correctness has gone too far. We need to use common sense and just go back to the notion of being polite to each other, while still being able to discuss emotionally charged issues. I think people have forgotten that individuals are responsible for their own reactions.

[MonoAccipiter]

I don't want to touch the transgender debate with a 10-foot pole...honestly, who cares? As long as it doesn't affect me, I couldn't care less what transgendered individuals do. I would prefer my tax dollars didn't go toward their surgery unless a physician considered it medically ncessary, but I am sure some of them would prefer that their tax dollars don't go toward my lung cancer treatments in 30 years if I continue to smoke. I guess it evens out. ;-)

 

However, to respond to the original post, I agree that people get far too offended in this day and age. If my being a white, straight, male offends someone, then they need to get their head examined. I don't care about someone else's race, gender, sexuality, etc. It doesn't affect me, so why should I care? More to the point, why should someone else care enough to demonize me because I am not a part of one of these minority groups? I just don't understand the thought process. Haven't we learned yet to try and judge individuals whenever possible?

 

By the way, I had to look up what "cis" means...apparently this means identifying with the gender you were born with. I guess I am that, too...I am honestly surprised there is a word for this. :-P

 

Anyway, political correctness has gone too far. We need to use common sense and just go back to the notion of being polite to each other, while still being able to discuss emotionally charged issues. I think people have forgotten that individuals are responsible for their own reactions.

 

The amount of money sex reassignment costs the state is probably infinitely small, and in this case the physicians consider it a medical necessity, since they consider gender dysphoria a condition, and it is the internationally approved treatment. It's also worth noting that most modern tax systems have moved beyond the definition of tax as something you pay to get services in return. It can be used for everything from alleviating public issues (e.g. income disparity or general poverty) to making sure the people who earn the most on state-provided services pay the most. In my country we have a man who got rich by providing cheap air travel, and every year he complains about the amount of taxes he pays on the basis of him getting the same services as everyone else, and his creating of many jobs. However, he always seems to be completely oblivious of the fact that every Norwegian pilot that works for him has had their education paid for by the Norwegian government, which has also built the airports, and the infrastructure there, and provide healthcare for all his employees. As such one could easily make the case that he gets much more from the government than the average person, and his increased tax rate suddenly doesn't look all that unfair. Sorry for digressing, but I find this is a very common misappropriation of what tax should be for. 

 

"It doesn't affect me, so why should I care?" This sounds like a healthy attitude most of the time, but it's important to understand that in this case, not caring helps nourish a harmful system (particularly in relation to sexism). Society is in many ways built upon trust, hence caring is done because you would consider it good if someone cared about you in the case that you were oppressed by something. This is especially true when it comes to minorities, which don't always have the "manpower" to champion their own issues. I like to think of from the existentialist point of view: I didn't choose to be born with my characteristics anymore than someone else chose theirs. So as far as I can consider it reasonable, which the point of this discourse has been to establish, helping others with their problems seems the right thing to do. It's also important to me that it's a maxim whereby everyone else could have acted without that giving me any discomfort personally or morally (basically the Categorical Imperative).

 

I am completely without sympathy for someone demonizing you for not being part of a minority though. Or for anything about any "group" or "category" you belong to at all. This generalization is as ridiculous no matter what you apply it too. You're absolutely right that people should be seen as individuals first and foremost. Then again I am not very fond of ethnic nationalism (i.e. being fond of your country solely because you were born there) either, so this might be more natural to me than to a lot of people. This (the demonizing - not the nationalism) is as far as I know, pretty absent in my country. There are some fringe groups, but they don't really get that much attention.

[GrantSP]

 

 

And don't apologise for your opinions, jeeze. This is what I mean: everyone has to do a curtain call because someone MAY get offended by pretty much nothing. Soft old Grant! ;) 

On this matter I am completely at odds with you. I choose to apologise, not just because others may be hurt, but because it irritates/confuses me that these sort of discussions are being made in open forums.

Those who don't experience these matters all too often assume that to discuss them openly is just an easy thing to do. Try to think from the other side, how would we feel if our very being was questioned all the time and we had to justify our existence whenever challenged?

 

Am I soft? Maybe. Old? Relative to the majority in this forum, perhaps, but now I see that just because I have an opinion on a matter doesn't give me the right to share that opinion.

If you and I were having this discussion alone, I would not apologise for stating it, you asked and I answered. However we are not having this alone and some may come here without the background of either of us or the context in which this discussion is based, it is to those few that I apologise. I once heard an older man respond to a feminist that became offended when he held a door open for her. His response was: "I didn't do it because you are female, I did it because I am a gentleman." So to paraphrase: "I apologise not because the world is too PC, but because it reflects my manners."

[EssArrBee]

I once heard an older man respond to a feminist that became offended when he held a door open for her. His response was: "I didn't do it because you are female, I did it because I am a gentleman." So to paraphrase: "I apologise not because the world is too PC, but because it reflects my manners."

I can see where that comes from. I grew up in Texas with all our Southern hospitality stuff (we're not really nice, but everyone is packing heat, so you better be polite). Then I lived in Boston for a few years and it couldn't have been more different. Manners are in really short supply with that lot. Some people just don't know how to respond to kindness because they aren't used to it. You know, like that friend everyone has that dates one abusive person after another, but they just can't stop because they wouldn't know what to do with good person. Sometimes it's less about their cause and more about their temperament. Wired for conflict. 

[Greg]

I grew up in the South with all the Southern hospitality as well. Yes sir, No ma'am, holding doors for other people, even waving at people as we pass each other on the road. People in some of the other states I've lived in are downright offended or afraid of such behavior. I remember when I was in my mid 20s I waved to a couple walking down the road (I think it might have been Chicago or New Jersey up north) and I literally thought they were about to call the cops thinking I was some kind of axe murderer. I didn't mean anything by it... by then it was just a habit to acknowledge other people.

 

I don't hold the door because of your gender. I hold the door because I was taught it is the polite thing to do and so it doesn't smack you in the face when I let go.

 

Over the course of my life, I have seen kindness and common courtesy fly right out the window. When I was in elementary school, we didn't worry about locking our doors at night. We knew all our neighbors on a first-name basis. Today I do not leave any windows or doors unlocked ever and I couldn't tell you the names of three of my neighbors. Three times in the past two years someone has tried to bust open the front door. Very few people leave a gap at a traffic light to let other cars turn into traffic. Today it seems to be all about me and my need for instant gratification.

[Guest]

Hey Grant, I'm not the one doing a thesis on the topic (I respect your dedication Mono). I was actually talking about stupid parenting, and how modern PC culture would maybe push them towards misinterpreting what the child really needs/wants (I know you have reiterated that it is complicated Mono). I wasn't having a go at you I was trying to be nice, but I guess I assumed something that was not true. You are grumpy though becuase you told me you are, so I guess it's that? ;) Don't like this? Then post some cool whale pictures please sensei. It would be interesting if you have got any.

 

If they really only have this condition and are not being affected by anything else, then fair play to them. Personally, I just think the idea of surgery just seems like a sickening prospect to me. Not because it's wrong, but because well... I can't explain it. I guess it just seems weird to the average person and I know I'm not alone there. All I know is that these people would be in a circus 150 years ago, and I bet today some people still believe they are freaks (however ignorant you may deem that). Personally, my mother openly calls herself a freak becuase she has some "double tubing" going on near her kidneys. I like the fact that she says that with a smile and doesn't give flying owl hooters about it.

 

So yeah, I think it's fine for people with bodily "anomalies" to be open that they are different. Even if you are living with a chunk out of your arm (or butt) that has been made into a sausage roll, you should accept this may cause people to continue to view you differently. I'm not trying to dodge any questions or anything, it's just how I feel about it and that's that. My mind just sees it as what it is and I don't try and hide that. Would I be friends with a trans? Yeah. Would I find it a bit weird? I can't lie I would, it would at least take some time for me to feel comfortable around them.

 

And yes Mono, you are clearly insane. I have no idea why you don't have a problem with waking up next to Danny DeVito, when you thought you went to bed with Julius. Now into the oven/gas chamber with you! Or are you no true Scotsman? But seriously, if you are born with abnormal amounts of chromosomes, then it would take me some copious amount of questioning and examination to determine if they are more male or female. If a decision was impossible though I have no idea. Flip a coin?

 

It doesn't matter though because most of my musings are not "relevant", so I'm sorry Morpheus, but how do you define relevant? You think that's relevancy you're breathing now (or gas)?

I'm sorry I had to!

 

 

 

Neb your government is ignoring those extremist camps being set up in the wild. That can't be healthy for you. :P I agree with you though that you shouldn't be bothered by everything and everyone, that is no way to live.

 

 

Baron if people are saying you are too feminine, just drink a gallon of horse sperm a day, eat lots of nut paste, and then LIFT!

Milk and peanut butter!

Anyway, you have a good point because a constant trashing does make you bulletproof eventually. Either that or you end up being a serial killer. One of those depending on how strong your mind is. You sound like the former at least, so that's a plus is it not?