Transgender Philosophy (Questions, Ideology)

[Aksannyi]

So if this is something that takes time, and the scenario you mentioned is your first interaction with a transgendered person, then my point still stands. If it takes a long time period to retrain your thought process, it isn't going to happen within your first interaction, your second, etc. It's going to take a long time.

That's true.

Tyrath, I believe we are not going to agree here. I personally think that although you may not make conscious actions against someone, sometimes we unconsciously do things to people we internally view as lesser or different, and that's why harboring those types of negative thoughts toward someone can be harmful.

Perhaps using transphobe/transphobia is not the correct terminology for this, but how about internalized bigotry. Bigotry, according to google, is "intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself." - it does not mention taking action, just harboring a belief about someone, unlike racism or homophobia. So I will concede that phobic may not be the correct word here, but I will amend to say that it is simply internalized bigotry. Thoughts, not actions.

Though I will continue to say that even internalized thoughts can lead to actions/words that we don't necessarily view as harmful but turn out to be - unfortunately, that's one of the hardest things for a person to recognize and then change.

[thetruepandagod]

"intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself."

It literally can't be that if you are actively tolerating them.

[Tyrath]

Now it is unquestionably correct to say that, regardless of whatever else, their "assigned-sex-at-birth" was male. But this is different from asserting that their "sex" (no qualifier) is still male, irrespective of gender. The argument is that a penis is not the end all be all determination of either gender OR sex.

The issue with saying that a transgender woman is female gender but male sex is that you are saying "I recognize you as a woman and your right to identify as a woman, and you are entitled to all the rights and privileges of a woman. But you are, biologically speaking, still a male." The implication there is that they are different from other women, that there's a degree of legitimacy that can only be obtained via operation - something out of the question for many people. You're placing an impetus on them to "fix" something in order to obtain the equal status they seek.

And to my understanding, it is by definition transphobic to say that someone is something other than what they self-identify as. Regardless of whether you qualify that as "biologically" and regardless of whether or not they are pre-op or post-op. Transphobia is about "identity denial." Again the one exception is specifying their sex-at-birth which is incredibly specifically limiting.

This is the point where my limited expertise in the subject ends. I don't argue for or against this interpretation out of any sincere belief in it, I have adopted it upon the advice it is the least offensive and the way most advocates in this area present the issue.

But THERE is something different about them than other women. Some things are grounded in facts and reality and they cannot be changed to spare people's feelings. This doesn't mean its a bad thing. I'm not sure where this idea that different is bad comes form.

And my point of contention is that disagreeing with how someone self-identifies is not transphobia. Phobias are not based on that. it's phobic when you harbor ill will or hatred towards someone because they identify different, or when you act on those feelings.

[hey]

But THERE is something different about them than other women. Some things are grounded in facts and reality and they cannot be changed to spare people's feelings.

And my point of contention is that disagreeing with how someone self-identifies is not transphobia. Phobias are not based on that. it's phobic when you harbor ill will or hatred towards someone because they identify different, or when you act on those feelings in a way to hurt the person.

So is a woman who has her uterus removed. Or um...everyone ever. No one is exactly the same. That does not make them any less of a woman.

[Tyrath]

So is a woman who has her uterus removed. Or um...everyone ever. No one is exactly the same. That does not make them any less of a woman.

Show me where I used the phrase "less of a woman."

I said different.

[Aksannyi]

It literally can't be that if you are actively tolerating them.

If Mike is a cashier at Publix and a couple of gay guys come through his register holding hands, he can still "tolerate" them by letting them pay for their goods and not making a shitty remark while internally hating everything they stand for.

Intolerance can be internalized. That is what I am trying to say.

[Tarage]

So is a woman who has her uterus removed. Or um...everyone ever. No one is exactly the same. That does not make them any less of a woman.

If someone found out that their significant other was sterile and decided that having children was more important to them than not, resulting in an end of the relationship, would you fault them for it?

[hey]

Show me where I used the phrase "less of a woman."

I said different.

Pretty much every one of your posts.

[Tyrath]

Pretty much every one of your posts.

Nope. Different =/= lesser.

[Jamison]

First off I'll say I've read this thread extremely carefully and have tried very hard to understand some things that I'm not very practiced at wrapping my brain around. There have been some extremely helpful posts that provide most excellent perspective.

The main point of contention over the past several pages have been over whether something or someone is transphobic. Some seem to argue that anything other than full acceptance with no qualification is transphobic, while others find think that -phobic implies something more directed/sinister/violent/hateful/intentional/hurtful/degrading/etc. I think people are getting offended when taking a meaning from that word that may not have been intended. The definition quickly turned up in Google is "intense dislike of or prejudice" and in most cases here, that is not what is being discussed.

[Gredival]

But THERE is something different about them than other women. Some things are grounded in facts and reality and they cannot be changed to spare people's feelings.

And my point of contention is that disagreeing with how someone self-identifies is not transphobia. Phobias are not based on that. it's phobic when you harbor ill will or hatred towards someone because they identify different, or when you act on those feelings in a way to hurt the person.

Phobias don't always manifest as ill-will or violence. It includes fear, aversion, and intolerance (which don't express themselves in violent outbursts). As I said previously to Panda, if he was in fact "mildly" "transphobic," that's not to say he's a prejudicial bigot. It means he psychologically identifies people by their assigned sex at birth, regardless of their current expressed sex/gender.

I would say the thing that can't be changed to spare someone's feelings is their assigned-sex-at-birth. This is irrevocable fact. But I think that sex isn't as clear cut as you might believe, even if you are basing your argument off biology.

Case in point is the man without a penis. You want to say a transgender woman who has a penis is still of the male sex (but of the female gender), yet a transgender woman who has gone through reassignment surgery is female in both sex and gender. The determinative factor is the surgery; the genitalia is what separates them. That logic breaks down though when you have the man who loses his penis in an accident. If you are saying having a penis is dispositive in one situation, then it must be dispositive in the next.

There are two questions here: What conditions are necessary to be considered a male (sex)? What conditions are sufficient to be considered a male (sex)?

Now Panda's solution to this was to say there are three sexes, with "trans" being a blanket for anyone besides the idealized opposite poles. That seems believable to me.

[BerenTebogo]

If Mike is a cashier at Publix and a couple of gay guys come through his register holding hands, he can still "tolerate" them by letting them pay for their goods and not making a shitty remark while internally hating everything they stand for.

Intolerance can be internalized. That is what I am trying to say.

Policing what people feel inside is a very scary, and in my mind, dangerous notion.

If what a person feels for their entire life never causes another human pain or suffering in any way, they should be regarded as a model citizen. A good member of the human race. Every single one of us has thoughts and ideals inside of us that could be considered dangerous, unlawful, or intolerant.

Policing thought that is never externalized, never causes anyone pain or even discomfort, is frankly terrifying. If someone is truly intolerant, and they internalize it to the point that nobody ever experiences it to any degree, is that a problem?

It certainly cannot be called a problem for society. No member of society has experienced any measure of discomfort that can be quantified in any way. Is it a problem for the individuals that surround that person? Again, by virtue of no quantifiable effects, no. A problem for the person themselves? Who knows. But I posit that it is neither your place nor mine to be literal thought police.

[Aksannyi]

Now Panda's solution to this was to say there are three sexes, with "trans" being a blanket for anyone besides the idealized opposite poles. That seems believable to me.

While this logically makes sense, and I can't speak for anyone who is trans, I'm not sure that's what they would want, to always have some differentiation. Trans women want to pass as women. Trans men want to pass as men. I don't think they want to always be separate.

[FNH]

I think a big problem over the last few pages has been the label of "transphobic". It comes across as a slur to me for people trying to understand another persons way of life to get labeled as a hater. True transphobes wouldn't be here asking questions.

[thetruepandagod]

Not transphobic, at least not in my opinion. Someone else might disagree with me, but my interpretation of what you are saying is that sex isn't binary, it's a scale. On one side there are "pure" females (female-at-birth who identify as female) and on the other side there are "pure" males (males-at-birth who identify as male) and there is a fluid "trans" category in between that includes transsexuals of all types - post-op, pre-op, etc. - and even those who fluidly and actively switch between the sexes.

Now Panda's solution to this was to say there are three sexes, with "trans" being a blanket for anyone besides the idealized opposite poles. That seems believable to me.

[FNH]

While this logically makes sense, and I can't speak for anyone who is trans, I'm not sure that's what they would want, to always have some differentiation. Trans women want to pass as women. Trans men want to pass as men. I don't think they want to always be separate.

I was going to ask this earlier, but why is it that the accepted labels promote separation? Referring to someone as trans woman/man or cis woman/man just perpetuates the notion that they are different, to me.

[thetruepandagod]

I was going to ask this earlier, but why is it that the accepted labels promote separation? Referring to someone as trans woman/man or cis woman/man just perpetuates the notion that they are different, to me.

Disables and breaks up the norm while simultaneously allowing the abnormal to more easily enter the norm.

[Tarage]

Whelp...

I kinda wonder how active these topics are going to be now.

[thetruepandagod]

Whelp...

I kinda wonder how active these topics are going to be now.

Dead barring aks posting most likely. Wish niro would jump in, i actually like her.

[Tarage]

Dead barring aks posting most likely. Wish niro would jump in, i actually like her.

Well, Aksannyi is generally pleasant to talk to and doesn't namecall, which kinda has been what has been rolling the comment train thus far.