Transgender Philosophy (Questions, Ideology)

[hey]

To add to this, are we seeing cases of well-adjusted, normally law-abiding citizens freaking out and becoming homicidal when they discover someone is trans?

I'm often seeing the argument that trans people do not disclose they are trans for fear of being murdered. My curiosity is where (socioeconomically, geographically, and otherwise) this is occurring.



this





Before going any further into this offensive(!) response, I'm just going to ask for a clarification on what I should "get over" and why this is a transphobic attitude.

This part:

because I no longer see them as the sex I am attracted to.

It is transphobic because you are refusing to accept their identity.

[Eurell]

I meant not that murder is legal - just that it's been used successfully as a defense, but that may be an outdated belief (or just misinformation I received once from what I thought was a reputable source). Actually, I'm going to look this up because I want to make sure it's legit ... I believe when I found it that it was legitimate but that was a while ago so let me verify it.

EDIT: Okay, it's Wikipedia (but I generally trust it) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_panic_defense

Apparently the use of the gay and/or trans panic defense is not illegal in most states, but it has rarely been used successfully. There has been a movement to ban the use of the defense at all.

Not outright saying you're wrong, as maybe for w/e reason I'm just not seeing it. But I don't see a single successful use there. Everyone ended up in jail (or executed) for their crimes.


And yeah, Gred's post was spot on.

[Aksannyi]

Not outright saying you're wrong, as maybe for w/e reason I'm just not seeing it. But I don't see a single successful use there. Everyone ended up in jail (or executed) for their crimes.


And yeah, Gred's post was spot on.

No, you are right, it has never been successfully used. I was misinformed. I am glad to hear that judges and juries generally don't take that as a defense.

[Salodin]

This part:


It is transphobic because you are refusing to accept their identity.

Please clarify. If a trans person comes out and their date or fling decides to end it because of it, that's transphobic?

[hey]

Please clarify. If a trans person comes out and their date or fling decides to end it because of it, that's transphobic?

Depends on why. If they say they don't want to date a man, then yes. If it is because they do not want to have sex with someone who has a penis, then no.

[Salodin]

Ok, that's fair.

[Penthesilea]

Depends on why. If they say they don't want to date a man, then yes. If it is because they do not want to have sex with someone who has a penis, then no.

Do you honestly think it's because they don't want to date a man and not the fact that there's a dick there? I can't speak with absolute certainty but I'd guess it's Almost always the dick. They just use the colloquial term "man" in place of saying "cisgender male" which you're suggesting that that's harmful and disrespectful. You typically throw around the term unintentional misogyny but you don't add unintentional to the transphobic.

[Cream Soda]

That was a very fine post. Thank you Gredival.

He wasn't the general of my ls for no reason.

Apparently the use of the gay and/or trans panic defense is not illegal in most states, but it has rarely been used successfully. There has been a movement to ban the use of the defense at all.

is ANY defense legal? I can see a shitload of defenses that have slim to none chances of convincing a jury, so using them would be retarded, but I've never heard of an actual "No, it's not legal for you to use this defense"

[hey]

Do you honestly think it's because they don't want to date a man and not the fact that there's a dick there? I can't speak with absolute certainty but I'd guess it's Almost always the dick. They just use the colloquial term "man" in place of saying "cisgender male" which you're suggesting that that's harmful and disrespectful. You typically throw around the term unintentional misogyny but you don't add unintentional to the transphobic.

Both are common reasons for people not wanting to date trans women. Even post-op trans women have trouble dating sometimes because people think of them as men.

[hey]

is ANY defense legal? I can see a shitload of defenses that have slim to none chances of convincing a jury, so using them would be retarded, but I've never heard of an actual "No, it's not legal for you to use this defense"

Apparently this particular defense is in fact banned in California.

[gaira]

in a relationship both parties have every right to want gender and/or birth sex to match their expectations or preferences. to me ending said relationship because of a disconnect between these things does not make someone transphobic, that would apply to a broader opinion of the trans community as a whole. it's a risk that does seem to lay almost entirely on the trans individual, but i honestly can't see an easy way around it.

[hey]

in a relationship both parties have every right to want gender and/or birth sex to match their expectations or preferences. to me ending said relationship because of a disconnect between these things does not make someone transphobic, that would apply to a broader opinion of the trans community as a whole. it's a risk that does seem to lay almost entirely on the trans individual, but i honestly can't see an easy way around it.

Certainly no one should be forced into a relationship with someone they don't want to be with. But if the only reason for that is because they are trans, sorry, but yes you are a transphobe.

[Tyrath]

Certainly no one should be forced into a relationship with someone they don't want to be with. But if the only reason for that is because they are trans, sorry, but yes you are a transphobe.

Disagree. That's like saying gay men are sexist because they don't like women. You like what you like, and I'm sorry but your birth sex is a factor in what people perceive of you. I can accept your trans identity and still not find it to be something I'm attracted to sexually.

[Guitarman]

As gaira said, It's an issue of personal preference. I would not ever date a trans person as my tastes do not include someone that was born a male. No hatred, no disgust, just what my preferences are. Transphobe is not even part of it.

[Cream Soda]

But if the only reason for that is because they are trans, sorry, but yes you are a transphobe.

Sorry, but I'm inclined to disagree. I can't speak for anyone else, but a transgender person cannot fulfill what I want out of a relationship(I guess this would be more of an indirect reason than a direct one?), so in this case, it would be because they are a transgender person.

[Gredival]

Here is a good reasoning: a large amount of trans people are offended by it.

Maybe i'm crazy, but when i see this in the OP, written by a mod:

I expect people to do so. Using language you know to be considered to be disrespectful by the people you are talking about is something that i would consider to be extremely disrespectful. I understand if someone is simply unaware, they may do it without realizing it is considered disrespectful, and that's okay. But it was explained multiple times, at first calmly, and then when the explanation was ignored, not so calmly. The people doing it have read these posts. They have then decided they don't care about how trans people feel, and it is more important that they speak however they think is "right", regardless of how disrespectful it is. If that is what we consider to be respectful phrasing around here, then i will leave, and you can have fun talking about trans people among 100% cis people, without having to worry about what some dirty tranny thinks.

I am assuming this in reference to "transgender" vs "transgendered."

If I haven't made it clear enough, I am not going to accept "It's offensive/rude/disrespectful" as a discussion ending argument for valid points of contention. We went through a whole song and dance in establishing that proper pronoun/classification use is based on self-identified gender vs. assigned-sex-at-birth/biological-sex/etc. I am enforcing, loosely, the use pronouns based on self-identified gender because I think it was clear one side won that argument (because they presented an argument that, logically, the other side had no counter for). And in order to facilitate the discussion moving on, I'm not permitting people who have lost the argument to sulk in the corner continue to use the words they want to just because.

However, this is a different argument about linguistics. The poster you are disagreeing with has presented evidence, written by a transgender woman, that the use of the "-ed" suffix is a matter of grammar, not disrespect, prejudice, etc. The evidence has specific, on-point, rebuttal to the main argument that has been used to defend "transgender" vs. "transgendered" (i.e. that the -ed implies that something has been ‘done to’ the ‘transgendered’ person). Furthermore, from what I can tell, he has been completely respectful about trying to engage in the discussion.

The fact that he disagrees with you, and the fact that disagreement regards an issue you believe to be inherently about respect, does not render his behavior disrespectful. Insofar as you find it offensive to be called transgendered instead of transgender, you are entitled to be addressed with all due care and respect.

But you do not get to set the terms of the nomenclature the rest of the forum uses. You want everyone here to drop the -ed off the word, give an argument for it besides the fact that you find it disrespectful.

However I suggest that you let it go because this discussion about semantics has been highly counterproductive. You are making mountains out of molehills, and it is notably aggravating to a number of posters who are trying to engage you on substantive grounds.

[Xno Kappa]

Certainly no one should be forced into a relationship with someone they don't want to be with. But if the only reason for that is because they are trans, sorry, but yes you are a transphobe.

I completely disagree. That logic is absolutely ridiculous.

[NynJa]

If they say they don't want to date a man, then yes. If it is because they do not want to have sex with someone who has a penis, then no.

So because they "disrespect the transgender" by inadvertently calling them a man, simply because they're not caught up with this current SJW PC era (or simply just dont give a fuck about this SJW PC era) and associate penis with man, they're transphobic? That's a pretty victim complex way of looking at things...if anyone who does something to upset you or support you, its automatically out of phobia and theyre a closed minded bigot.

[Enkidu]

Sorry, but I'm inclined to disagree. I can't speak for anyone else, but a transgender person cannot fulfill what I want out of a relationship(I guess this would be more of an indirect reason than a direct one?), so in this case, it would be because they are a transgender person.

Hypothetically the only thing they couldn't fulfill is carrying a child and sharing genetics with your children. You could still have a biological child of your own (surrogacy) or adopt. A more flat out "that's just not for me" is generally less slippery.

Invoking "trasphobe" over these issues, however, is nonsensical. Attraction and acceptance are two very different things.

[Gredival]

is ANY defense legal? I can see a shitload of defenses that have slim to none chances of convincing a jury, so using them would be retarded, but I've never heard of an actual "No, it's not legal for you to use this defense"

To be precise, the way affirmative defenses work is that they are known exceptions to the rule. There aren't legal and illegal defenses; there are recognized and unrecognized defenses. Our legal system relies on precedent, so for a defense to shield an accused from liability for an established law, the defense should be equally established.

The caveat, of course, is that judges often choose the result and come up with the reasoning afterward and can justify pretty much anything. Most recognized affirmative defenses were at one time justifcatory arguments that a random lawyer tossed out at one point that a judge agreed with and entered the system as precedent.