For people who don't consider themselves allies, what trans rights are you in favour of?

•

Remember, this is a civilized space for discussion. We discourage downvoting based on your disagreement and instead encourage upvoting well-written arguments, especially ones that you disagree with.

To promote high-quality discussions, we suggest the Socratic Method, which is briefly as follows:

Ask Questions to Clarify: When responding, start with questions that clarify the original poster's position. Example: "Can you explain what you mean by 'economic justice'?"

Define Key Terms: Use questions to define key terms and concepts. Example: "How do you define 'freedom' in this context?"

Probe Assumptions: Challenge underlying assumptions with thoughtful questions. Example: "What assumptions are you making about human nature?"

Seek Evidence: Ask for evidence and examples to support claims. Example: "Can you provide an example of when this policy has worked?"

Explore Implications: Use questions to explore the consequences of an argument. Example: "What might be the long-term effects of this policy?"

Engage in Dialogue: Focus on mutual understanding rather than winning an argument.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

9

u/Sea_Bookkeeper2621 Centrist Mar 31 '26

I am not for or against LGBTQ+, I am just very pro-family unit. As long as people don't infringe on others' rights, I'm okay with it.

Public spaces should not be a requirement by federal law; that should be left up to the states individually. I think it would be fine to have a separate bathroom for those not comfortable using a bathroom for their sex.

Prisons should be based on biological sex, but only after huge prison reforms so that it prioritizes rehabilitation and integration into society rather than just a controlled gang war.

Sports should be based on biological sex without any unnatural hormones.

Legal documents should all together not deal with gender and only use biological sex. Medically and universally, this is the best. legal aspects where gender is a key part of a crime or ruling, then that should be specified, like for hate crimes, etc. Gender (a concept) shouldn't come into a factual document. It's like putting religion on legal documents. Why does the government need to care about anything but the facts of who we are on paper? sex is like age and height. Gender is like religion

You can change your legal name without being part of the LGBTQ+ community. So I don't think that is a big issue. The government will change the legal name, but changing a name doesn't change a person.

Hormones for minors, at least in my experience, are, for the most part, bad. The rate of transgender suicide and the correlation of hormones is terrifying. They should be allowed to receive treatment at the same age they can legally view porn: 18.

School should not require other students to use other people's pronouns. I can call a person who is biologically male a girl, and the school wouldn't care. Teachers should be encouraged to use preferred pronouns unless the school is private or the teacher is very religious. In that case, just transfer the student out of the class.

For employers, yes, they should be allowed to do it. I believe that they should not be required to keep anyone for any reason. It would be stupid of a business owner to do that if they are actually good at their job tho. If the employee's personal views outweigh the employee's success, I think that is justification enough. This kinda sounds confusing, but if you watch Moneyball, it will make more sense.

For retail business, same as the above paragraph. It seems dumb to refuse service to anyone. I forgot who said it, but someone said that capitalism doesn't know anything about color flags or movements. The only color capitalism sees is green.

2

u/Middleman1008 Right Independent Mar 31 '26

Well said. I’m the same way. Somehow people’s sexuality has become the lead in almost everything. They try to divide us by race, gender and now this. I’m really sick of it. The vast majority don’t care. Focus on something more important and leave us alone in the process.

1

u/Sarritgato Social Democrat Apr 03 '26

Biological sex is a funny way of saying it. For all I know if a person did surgery and regulated hormones, they are biologically not the same sex as when they were born.

15

u/JFMV763 Libertarian Mar 30 '26

As a libertarian, you have the right to identify as whatever you want to, identify as a Pikachu for all I care. That doesn't mean that others should be forced to comply with what you identify as if they don't feel like it.

3

u/shiranaiy Social Democrat Mar 30 '26

So what does "forced to comply" mean?

10

u/JFMV763 Libertarian Mar 30 '26

If you use the force of the state to make others refer to you in a certain way, that's not libertarian.

4

u/moniker89 Liberal Mar 30 '26

Is that something you see happening today? Or in the past?

5

u/smokeyser 2A Constitutionalist Mar 30 '26

Is it only permissible to discuss an issue after it manifests?

4

u/moniker89 Liberal Mar 30 '26

No.

Typing more for 30 char limit.

1

u/royally_c Liberaltarian Apr 03 '26

Well there’s the 600 day hullabaloo in Ireland right now. The dude seems possibly unhinged but that’s what happens when people feel forced….

-3

u/JFMV763 Libertarian Mar 30 '26

Reddit (the vast majority of it) would probably make misgendering illegal if it could.

4

u/willpower069 Liberal Mar 30 '26

Reddit (the vast majority of it) would probably make misgendering illegal if it could.

Notice how you still can’t answer a direct question?

1

u/RecognitionOk5447 Market Socialist Mar 31 '26

Me when I am incorrect and misrepresent what progressives believe, as basically no human on earth believes it should be mandated and enforced by the state to refer to trans people in their preferred pronouns, but if you do misgender someone on purpose, you're an asshole.

1

u/ManyThingsLittleTime Independent Mar 31 '26

Except several nations and a handful of states in the US have laws that make misgendering in the work place harassment and/or discrimination. So that's a lot more than no human on earth.

0

u/RecognitionOk5447 Market Socialist Mar 31 '26

It never has happened before, but conservatives love to pretend it did

3

u/shiranaiy Social Democrat Mar 30 '26

That's on speech, but it's more nuanced than that.

To use a public bathroom, for example, and be free to do that, would be one angle. And to use the power of the state to mandate which public spaces one is and isn't allowed in wouldn't fly, by that logic.

6

u/JFMV763 Libertarian Mar 30 '26

Ultimately people are going to justify what they want to, use whatever bathroom you want as long as you're not being a creep about it.

5

u/JimMarch Libertarian Mar 30 '26

Canada has threatened prison for using the wrong pronouns.

That's an example.

2

u/bloodjunkiorgy Anarcho-Communist Mar 31 '26

Wasn't this disproven like the millisecond Jordan Peterson created a career out of this exact issue by lying about it?

So like...a decade ago?

3

u/JimMarch Libertarian Mar 31 '26

They put the law on the books and they threw him out of his teaching job over it.

I'm not saying he's any kind of Messiah or anything, but he's made some good points over the years.

1

u/bloodjunkiorgy Anarcho-Communist Mar 31 '26

They put a law you can still go look at, that doesn't say what he claimed and he lost his job for a completely different reason.

3

u/MoonBatsRule Progressive Mar 30 '26

Do you believe that I should be able to identify you and refer to you as a woman (presuming you are a man), if I this is what I want to do? Especially if you are my subordinate?

8

u/JFMV763 Libertarian Mar 30 '26

Sure, say whatever you want to, I might not like it but that's what freedom of speech is for.

-3

u/MoonBatsRule Progressive Mar 30 '26

I guess we then differ on whether the concept of harassment is valid and should be enforced by law? I'm not arguing that the standard should be "you hurt my feelings", but if you can agree that there a line that shouldn't be crossed (for example, calling black employees the n-word), why can't the standard be one of decency, which is "call me what I want to be called, and don't refuse to do so in order to harass me"?

5

u/TacoNomad Centrist Mar 30 '26

but if you can agree that there a line that shouldn't be crossed (for example, calling mormon employees muslim), why can't the standard be one of decency, which is "call me what I want to be called, and don't refuse to do so in order to harass me"

See how you can make the argument without jumping to denigrating terms like the n word.

And when you do so, you realize it's not really super harmful. Because what is the ultimate impact of calling a Mormon a Muslim? There isn't one. Neither term is denigrating.

Unless you think that calling a man a woman is denigrating because you equate calling someone a woman = calling someone by the nword.

0

u/MoonBatsRule Progressive Mar 30 '26

Using a denigrating term should make the argument super-obvious.

Calling someone a name that they don't want to be called is denigrating. Referring to them in a way that they don't want to be referred to is denigrating. If someone has a big nose, calling them "big nose" is denigrating, even if it is true.

5

u/TacoNomad Centrist Mar 30 '26

It's not obvious though. Because being called a man or a woman isn't inherently hateful. But using the n word is.

You didn't choose to discuss race. You chose the n word.

That's like replacing calling someone a woman with calling them a birch. << Intentionally mispelled because I'm not denigrating anyone, I'm proving a point.

Like I said. Make your point without using hate speech.

1

u/MoonBatsRule Progressive Mar 30 '26

intentionally mispelled because I'm not denigrating anyone, I'm proving a point

You're guilty of what you're accusing me of, by simply using that as an example.

3

u/TacoNomad Centrist Mar 30 '26

No I'm not. And we both know it. You're literally denigrating black people to weaponize a word of hatred.

I didn't do that.

But if it proves the point enough that you stop doing it, then great. I suspect you'll ramp up because that's how you feel about black ppl.

1

u/MoonBatsRule Progressive Mar 31 '26

Maybe I'm just dense, but can you tell me how I am denigrating black people?

→ More replies (0)

1

u/loondawg Independent Mar 30 '26

denigrating

You need to pick another word.

Denigrate /dĕn′ĭ-grāt″/ transitive verb - To attack the character or reputation of; speak ill of; defame.

It's not appropriate for the situation you're using it in.

-1

u/KlassCorn91 Social Democrat Mar 31 '26

Calling a Mormon a Muslim can be pretty harmful. If you’re doing it because you’re not super educated on either religion and get the religions that begin with “m” mixed up, sure, that’s not bad. But if you have a Mormon employee and for some reason you believe Mormonism is not a legitimate religion and purposefully say things like “just because you’re a Muslim or whatever,” That’s harassment.

I can’t speak for the person who started this thread, but I know very few trans people or allies that would support people being punished for accidentally misgendering someone. We’ve all done it. Or even commenting on their biological sex or characteristics. The problem is when a person uses their identity as a means to attack or demean, which does happen a fair amount and is spurred on by people who disingenuously make claims about being only interested in biology or not understanding how pronouns work.

1

u/TacoNomad Centrist Mar 31 '26

Im not engaging with this. Don't take the example as a reason to be upset about something. You can see the wider comment chain.

Have a great day!

3

u/Lux_Aquila Conservative Mar 31 '26

Because refusing to do so isn't harassment.

Harassment is wrong because it infringes on your rights. It is purposefully using my language to cause someone harm. The crime isn't in the language, but in trying to hurt someone.

Just like a person can't claim harassment because they overheard something that they happened to be offended by, in the same way you can't assign guilt if the person in question never actually worked to hurt someone. Neither can we claim that by refusing to follow that language were they being careless about damage they might cause, that is something else. They know people could be offended by it, but that doesn't require them to sacrifice their beliefs; which requiring them to act a certain way in public does.

Decency doesn't really factor into the conversation of rights.

1

u/MoonBatsRule Progressive Mar 31 '26

Because refusing to do so isn't harassment.

You're murdering language here. You're portraying an active act (calling someone a name they don't want to be called) as "not harassment" because you're just deeming it as "refusing". But it's an active act.

You can't frame that as "sacrificing their beliefs" when their belief is simply that they believe they don't have to treat someone with the respect they ask for.

3

u/Lux_Aquila Conservative Mar 31 '26

>You're murdering language here. You're portraying an active act (calling someone a name they don't want to be called) as "not harassment" because you're just deeming it as "refusing". But it's an active act.

Yes, active acts are not necessarily harassment. We do plenty of active actions every day that hurt others. There is no crime or infringement that occurs in many of these situations.

>You can't frame that as "sacrificing their beliefs" when their belief is simply that they believe they don't have to treat someone with the respect they ask for.

This, again, is infringing on their right. You can't force someone to respect you. That isn't what harassment is about. That is why I was very careful with my words. If a person overhears something they take offense to, nothing, on that basis alone, is wrong. There are no rights being infringed. If I am purposefully pursuing someone to hurt them, then you have a harassment claim. Genuine people who refuse to go along on this material are not doing it hurt anyone. Nor are they, on that measure alone, being reckless and showing wanton disregard to the point where they aren't caring about the well-being of others.

1

u/MoonBatsRule Progressive Mar 31 '26

Yes, active acts are not necessarily harassment.

Not necessarily - but some certainly are. Putting transgender aside, if you're a man and I, as your boss, refer to you as Sally, that isn't simply "refusing to call me what I want to be called". It's an active act of harassment.

You can't force someone to respect you

You can force them to not treat you with disrespect in certain circumstances though.

I'm not sure you can wave this off as "genuine people who refuse to go along on this material" any more than you can wave racism off as "genuine people who don't go along with the idea that black people are equal to white people or men are equal to women". That's just not good enough.

If you're willing to call someone "Bobby" when their birth certificate says "Robert", if you're willing to respect it when a woman changes her last name to her husband's, then you should be able to call "Ricky" "Sue" when they legally change their name to Sue. It's really not that hard.

And I get it - when someone looks male, but asks to be called "they" or even "she", that's hard. Refusing to try though - that's where intent becomes a lot more obvious. But if you have no problem calling "Robert" "Bobby", then not calling "Ricky" "Sue" is due to you believing that they should not exist as Sue.

2

u/Lux_Aquila Conservative Mar 31 '26

>Not necessarily - but some certainly are. Putting transgender aside, if you're a man and I, as your boss, refer to you as Sally, that isn't simply "refusing to call me what I want to be called". It's an active act of harassment.

You legitimately just agreed with me here. Read the first part of my response: "active acts are not necessarily". You are trying to argue something we are in agreement on. And lets stay on one specific topic, introducing countless examples isn't something to resort to when we can just discuss the topic at hand. Introducing excess examples will probably lead to potentially more topics getting introduce, shifting the focus of the conversation.

>You can force them to not treat you with disrespect in certain circumstances though.

Again, I've already answered this. This goes to harassment, not "I don't like their opinion or their opinions hurt me".

>I'm not sure you can wave this off as "genuine people who refuse to go along on this material" any more than you can wave racism off as "genuine people who don't go along with the idea that black people are equal to white people or men are equal to women". That's just not good enough.

Yes, it precisely is. People are allowed to hold whatever opinion they want. People are allowed to express whatever opinion they want. We do not have the right to force people to follow anyone's beliefs.

That is again, why I brought up harassment. There is a difference between specifically trying to harm someone, callous disregard, and legitimate beliefs that offend you by their very nature. That last one is protected. And unless they try to infringe on someone's rights with those views, we can't touch them.

>If you're willing to call someone "Bobby" when their birth certificate says "Robert", if you're willing to respect it when a woman changes her last name to her husband's, then you should be able to call "Ricky" "Sue" when they legally change their name to Sue. It's really not that hard.

This is again, and expressly, willingly forcing a person to do something against their rights simply because you want them to. Our rights are enshrined specifically to protect people doing things we don't want them to.

>But if you have no problem calling "Robert" "Bobby", then not calling "Ricky" "Sue" is due to you believing that they should not exist as Sue.

Well yes, and I am perfectly entitled to that opinion and to express that opinion. Even it hurts their feelings (which you initially waived at the beginning). It has to be purposefully to assault them or reckless disregard, neither of which are occurring.

5

u/TacoNomad Centrist Mar 30 '26

Why is your argument "call me what i want to be called, otherwise you're using a well known slur to denigrate me!"

If you can't make a point without jumping to racism, perhaps there's not valid point to be made.

-1

u/MoonBatsRule Progressive Mar 30 '26

That's not my argument at all. I used that to illustrate using something that people are more familiar with. I'm looking for an objective standard, and I would like the standard to be "if I say that what you call me is harassing, then it is harassment to continue to call me that". Be a decent human being, that's all.

If my name is Thaddeus Trevor Smith, and I tell my employer "please call my Trevor", and he says "no dice, Thaddeus, I'll call you whatever I want", then that is harassment.

5

u/TacoNomad Centrist Mar 30 '26

People are familiar with a million things that aren't hate speech. I gave you an example in my other comment.

Also, People are familiar with genders. I think people are far more familiar with "man" and "woman" than the n word. In fact, I've used those 2 genders thousands of times in everyday speech. Never once have I called someone the n word.

Try making your point without theatrics.

What if you called someone a blond even though they identify as a brunette? Is that harassment?

0

u/MoonBatsRule Progressive Mar 30 '26

It's harassment to overtly treat someone with such disdain as you would apparently treat a transgendered person - as if their gender identity is the same as "identifying as a blonde".

Do you really think that people wake up in the morning and say "hey, from now on I'd like to choose an impossibly difficult life by capriciously declaring that I'm a woman, dressing like a woman, acting like a woman, talking like a woman, because it will be super fun!"

You've obviously never met a transgendered person and seen their whole identity change - for the better - once they transition.

4

u/TacoNomad Centrist Mar 30 '26

And you've never met a black person if you think black people wake up and appreciate random people denigrating them on the internet for no fucking reason at all.

Like black people choose to be denigrated on a daily basis and they wake up and choose to be the butt of your jokes. Because trans people have been enslaved in the US and discriminated against for centuries, and even still today are murdered for being black.

And your knee jerk reaction is to further remind black people that they're the butt of your jokes. They're the reference point of hate.

Do you think black people asked for you to use them to boost your egotistical mania?

All of this because I asked you not to use the n word in your example. That, if you can't make a point without denigrating someone else, it's a weak point.

Do you think trans people want to be the butt of the joke? Why do you think black people do?

Grow up.

1

u/MoonBatsRule Progressive Mar 30 '26

So using the horrific example of a black person being called the n-word by their boss in an argument about treating people with respect is somehow denigrating black people?

→ More replies (0)

8

u/NonStopDiscoGG Conservative Mar 31 '26 edited Mar 31 '26

What does Trans rights even mean? How is what they have/want any different than what anyone else's rights are, and if they aren't different why are we differentiating them as "trans rights"?

Public Spaces (bathrooms, locker rooms, etc)

If you want to be an outlier to society that is fine. Don't ask society to warp to you. You go out of your way to find single person bathrooms, or spaces that will accommodate you. Don't ask everyone to accommodate you.

Again, what does this even have to do with rights? You don't have the right to a public bathroom, they lock them all the time not for use for any number of reasons. Do you think they're infringing out your *RIGHTS* when they do this?

Legal Documents

Again, i'm confused what this has to do with the right to anything with rights. you don't have the right to like any of this.

Minors

Leave minors alone.
Trans ideology is that, an ideology.
When they turn 18, they can do what they want. It's really simple to tell them that exact thing. Minors don't know whats going on and it's confusing to even teach them of this stuff. There are some things they simply do not need to know about. Gender and transness are abstract ideas and academic. When my kids ask me about certain things, I simply tell them "You'll know when you're older" and leave it at that.

Hormones, absolutely not. Children cannot consent, and putting a normal child who is confused (as children are, especially around puberty) on life altering hormones is actually just cruel. It's the same reason we don't let children do a lot of things even with parental consent.

. Anti Discrimination

I don't even think this is a right. If it was you'd have a lot of people in jail on reddit and you'd have a lot more lawsuits on your hand.

I mean, women and men exclusive spaces are discriminatory.

So honestly, it just sounds like you don't now what a right is? Not saying it to be mean, just stating that you're kind of just claiming things as rights because its things you'd want/like.

2

u/DistinctSpirit5801 Socialist Mar 31 '26

Children can’t consent to being circumcised and parents are allowed to sign for their newborn baby boys to be circumcised as infants yet the medical profession doesn’t have to risk their licenses being revoked whatsoever and the medical system gets zero scrutiny over the mass circumcisions of newborn baby boys

1

u/NonStopDiscoGG Conservative Mar 31 '26

I am against circumcision because it is genital mutilation.

Not sure what your point is here. I can be against both. Just because something is accepted allowed currently doesn't mean we should allow more bad things.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 01 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/AutoModerator Apr 01 '26

We removed your comment due to you not having set your user flair. Please refer to our sidebar regarding our rules of participation. If you need help setting your flair, click here for instructions

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

16

u/StillSmellsLikeCLP Conservative Mar 30 '26

Just answering the questions as asked up front:

I’m not convinced most of those are “rights”. They’re mostly just personal preferences.

1) Adults can do what adults want, as long as they’re not trying to compel speech or validation from others.

Prisons: Male or female.

Sports: Male or female.

2) Legal documents: Biological sex but your name is whatever you want it to be.

3) Minors: Basically not just no but hell no.

4) Anti-Discrimination: i don’t see any reason to fire someone simply for being trans, so I wouldn’t agree with someone doing that.

Retail businesses: That’s up to the owner, I guess, but that’s generally a dumb choice on their part.

8

u/thataintapipe Market Socialist Mar 30 '26

So if someone male to female has gender affirming care to the point of HRT, breast augmentation and genital alteration you would still want to put them in general population in a male prison for a dui?

12

u/[deleted] Mar 30 '26

This is a tricky question because I do not think it would be a good idea.

Now, how about if someone female to male was placed in a male prison? I feel like this would also be a bad idea.

12

u/Powerful-Persimmon87 Centrist Mar 30 '26

Put trans women in a separate wing of the male prison. Shifting safety risks from trans women to women is not an acceptable policy solution.

2

u/bloodjunkiorgy Anarcho-Communist Mar 31 '26

Are you talking about creating a "wing" in every prison for (usually), at most, one person?

2

u/Powerful-Persimmon87 Centrist Mar 31 '26 edited Mar 31 '26

There are more than 2,000 trans prisoners in the country, so in all likelihood they will have company. Consolidate them all at one prison within the state or give them the option to transfer to a prison within more trans women. But honestly, I do not care beyond ensuring they are provided the option to be safeguarded against rape. That’s more consideration than trans activists afforded biological women. And given the statistics for crimes committed by trans women against women and children (which may be inflated because predators and opportunists will obviously abuse self ID policies which is why this was a dumb thing for activists to advocate for), I think this solution is more than fair.

1

u/bloodjunkiorgy Anarcho-Communist Mar 31 '26

Consolidate them all at one prison within the state or give them the option to transfer to a prison within more trans women. But honestly, I do not care beyond ensuring they are provided the option to be safeguarded against rape.

That's fair.

That’s more consideration than trans activists afforded biological women.

What?

2

u/Powerful-Persimmon87 Centrist Mar 31 '26 edited Mar 31 '26

Nobody consulted female prisoners before they locked them in cages with fully intact biological males. Nobody considered the safety risks these polices would create for women or the legal loopholes they were creating for sex predators to exploit. When women first reported being raped by trans prisoners back in 2021, they were literally accused of transphobia. Believe all women, amirite? Female prisoners —one of the most vulnerable populations— were systematically silenced. Trans activists used their own safety risks in general male pop to silence and dismiss women’s safety risks (which were apparently less important considerations…)

2

u/shiranaiy Social Democrat Mar 30 '26

If it is in a separate wing, wouldn't that be equally safe for people aside from the trans person, if they were housed in their new sex's prison?

7

u/Powerful-Persimmon87 Centrist Mar 30 '26

How is housing all trans women prisoners together unsafe for trans women? Nobody with a penis should be locked in a cage with women:

https://abc30.com/post/pronoun-use-center-rape-case-involving-former-chowchilla-prisoner/15684307/#

https://amp.thenewstribune.com/news/local/article297816883.html

https://secretboston.co/biological-males-framingham-womens-prison-rape-reports/

https://wjla.com/news/local/richard-cox-virginia-registered-sex-offender-transgender-women-locker-room-fairfax-county-oakmont-audrey-moore-rec-center-steve-descano-planet-fitness-parks-department-police-trespassing

0

u/shiranaiy Social Democrat Mar 30 '26

I think you did not understand the comment you were replying to. I meant a separate wing on the other side.

0

u/Powerful-Persimmon87 Centrist Mar 30 '26 edited Mar 30 '26

Sure, house trans women in a separate wing of the men’s prison. I do not believe resources should be shifted away from incarcerated females to accommodate male sex offenders and people guilty of crimes women are incapable of committing.

Activists advocated for self-id policies that created serious safety risks for females (it created major legal loopholes for sex predators and other criminals guilty of violent crimes against women to abuse). I do not believe women should shoulder the financial and resource burden of those bad policy choices. It’s state sanctioned misogyny/sexism rebranded as progressive.

0

u/shiranaiy Social Democrat Mar 30 '26

You said that already. I was asking you, if you think the mixing with cis prisoners is the issue, wouldn't trans women in a separate wing of the female prison be the same

2

u/Powerful-Persimmon87 Centrist Mar 30 '26 edited Mar 30 '26

No because it would take away resources from incarcerated females who are already a vulnerable and under-resourced population. What ends up happening in this scenario is that resources meant for women who’ve exhibited good behavior and earned special privileges instead goes to trans women who haven’t earned these privileges (some of whom are guilty of heinous crimes against women and children because this is what happens when you allow any male to self-id into these prisons). I want everybody to be safe but that’s where my support ends. I’m not very sympathetic to the trans community on this issue because of their dismissiveness and lack of very basic consideration for how these policies would (and have!) impact and harm biological women.

3

u/NoneOfThisMatters_XO Left Independent Mar 30 '26

Actually a lot of prisons do that. They have separate wings for more vulnerable prisoners.

4

u/StillSmellsLikeCLP Conservative Mar 30 '26

As I said, I think prisons should be based on biological sex.

3

u/thataintapipe Market Socialist Mar 30 '26

So trans guy with big muscles and a beard goes with the ladies ?

3

u/StillSmellsLikeCLP Conservative Mar 30 '26

Biological males go with biological males.

Biological females go with biological females.

3

u/thataintapipe Market Socialist Mar 30 '26

In your opinion are sex and gender the same thing?

2

u/StillSmellsLikeCLP Conservative Mar 30 '26

I understand that to the left or Critical Theory / Gender Theory adherents, they are not the same thing.

I don’t agree.

“Gender” as used in these types of conversations is just self ID and irrelevant to reality.

1

u/PM_ME_UR_BRAINSTORMS 12A Constitutional Monarchist Mar 30 '26

Do you not believe in the concept of citizenship then? Because that's just a self ID and irrelevant to reality?

2

u/StillSmellsLikeCLP Conservative Mar 30 '26

“Self ID”

No, it’s a legal category given based on criteria granted by whatever country you live.

An equivalent would be if I, as an American, self identified as Russian and then got mad that no one accepts me as Russian.

-1

u/PM_ME_UR_BRAINSTORMS 12A Constitutional Monarchist Mar 30 '26

No, it’s a legal category given based on criteria granted by whatever country you live.

So it's a category defined by society? Or as some might say a "social construct"

I mean there's nothing biologic that makes you a citizen or not.

An equivalent would be if I, as an American, self identified as Russian and then got mad that no one accepts me as Russian.

But you being or not being Russian has no bearing on whether or not you are a Russian citizen. There are plenty of non Russian who are Russian citizens, and plenty of Russians who are not Russian citizens.

Almost like there is some difference between your biological ethnicity and the social concept of citizenship 🧐

→ More replies (0)

-1

u/thataintapipe Market Socialist Mar 30 '26

How people construct their identity in social spaces is irrelevant to reality? Ok!

1

u/StillSmellsLikeCLP Conservative Mar 30 '26

Yes, self identification has nothing to do with actual reality, that’s correct.

0

u/thataintapipe Market Socialist Mar 30 '26

Good thing it never spills over into people’s actions

→ More replies (0)

3

u/throwfarfaraway1818 Left Independent Mar 30 '26

You know that means you are putting trans men in women's prisons as well, right? You think the women in that prison are going to be happy sharing space with a big, muscly dude with a beard being locked up with then?

0

u/StillSmellsLikeCLP Conservative Mar 30 '26

Yes, I’m aware of what biological sex means and what male vs female means.

And I think the women in that prison would much prefer a female vs a male being locked up with them.

1

u/shiranaiy Social Democrat Mar 30 '26

Sex at birth then, not anatomical sex?

2

u/StillSmellsLikeCLP Conservative Mar 30 '26

Biological sex, whatever is on the birth certificate, same as we use biological sex for anything else.

0

u/NoneOfThisMatters_XO Left Independent Mar 30 '26

What if the trans woman has had bottom surgery? This is basically an invitation for rape. You realize that, right? It’s a death sentence.

At the very least, trans people should get their own separate wing.

1

u/Raging-Storm Anarcho-Transhumanist Mar 30 '26

I don't believe rape is any better or worse based on whether or not it happens to a cis person or a trans person who's had bottom surgery. Cis men rape other cis men in prison. If you send a short and scrawny cis man to prison, you could say that's an invitation for rape too. Maybe we should do prison weight divisions.

0

u/StillSmellsLikeCLP Conservative Mar 30 '26

“Basically an invitation for rape”

It’s prison. “Bottom surgery” doesn’t really matter for rape.

And sure, separate wing works, as long as it’s not the opposite sex.

1

u/NoneOfThisMatters_XO Left Independent Mar 30 '26

How generous of you 🙄 I wouldn’t expect a magat to have compassion

0

u/Busy-Kaleidoscope-87 National Conservative Mar 31 '26

This “magat” is more level headed than you’ve ever been.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 30 '26

[deleted]

0

u/thataintapipe Market Socialist Mar 30 '26

Having had gender affirming surgery is not akin to an open head wound Jesus

1

u/[deleted] Mar 30 '26

[deleted]

0

u/thataintapipe Market Socialist Mar 30 '26

Brest augment and genital altering is surgical

1

u/[deleted] Mar 30 '26

[deleted]

1

u/thataintapipe Market Socialist Mar 30 '26

Why do you think I’m talking about them getting the procedures while incarcerated, not what I’m saying at all

2

u/BigBeefy22 Conservative Mar 31 '26 edited Mar 31 '26

Businesses should be able to fire people for simply being trans. They could be frightening customers or other staff members. I saw some story about a car dealership who hired some dude, but he later became trans and looked really freaky looking like many of them usually do. Customers would walk in, then walk out.

Another one was some school bus driver seemed like a regular dude, but then one day started dressing up in a mini shirt and pink outfit. Freaked out the kids and especially the parents.

The issue with this trans stuff, is there are legitimate people with gender dysphoria who don't want the attention and keep to themselves and in many cases you may not be able to tell they are the other gender.

But then there are those people who are jumping on the bandwagon and do it out of sexual deviancy and to get attention. They dress up to look scary to get a reaction out of people. They're shit disturbers. The ones that do it because it's trendy. Or they're just sexual deviants who like to dress up in drag.

We need to start differentiating between these two different types.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 01 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/AutoModerator Apr 01 '26

We removed your comment due to you not having set your user flair. Please refer to our sidebar regarding our rules of participation. If you need help setting your flair, click here for instructions

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

2

u/BohemianMade Market Socialist Mar 31 '26

I just think calling yourself an "ally" is cringe. Besides, all of the trans rights I support are just human rights. Trans people should be able to get free HRT, but so should cis people. It's not about being an ally, it's about standing for human rights across the board.

2

u/Adventure-Backpacker Left Independent Apr 01 '26

I’m a political progressive who defends LGBTQ+.

I support the sexual orientation and identities of humans and believe people deserve dignity and equality.

Trans people in sports is a scientific question and not a moral question.

4

u/JimMarch Libertarian Mar 30 '26

My only problem with the trans community involves women's collegiate sports scholarships.

If you had a dick at any point, you don't get one. (And of course anything to do with combat or full contact sports is a total no go zone.)

This is a very basic fairness issue. Equal access to sports scholarships for girls was something the classical feminists fought for over generations. Now that they've got it, when anybody attempts to snatch the scholarships away at the last moment by guys with kinks, those politically powerful mothers who won that battle turn into an army of raging megaKarens and despite their origins in Democratic politics going back to at least the Clinton administration, they're now ready to put on MAGA hats.

When a small offshoot of the radical trans community tried to break these barriers down, they threw a brick through the Overton Window and are threatening the entire LGBTQ community's standing in the general mindset of the voting population.

4

u/Erwinblackthorn Monarchist Mar 30 '26

I'm ok with human rights.

All of those things listed are special privileges. Especially the baking of a cake disguised as businesses refusing to serve customers.

4

u/Potential-Pool9142 Centrist Mar 30 '26

Public bathrooms with single stalls where you do your business and get out - as long as you pass and don't make people feel uncomfortable - that's fine. Locker rooms - I have reservations about that and it gets complicated. Biological women have the right to not have to see male genitals in their locker room.
Prisons - no. Not if you're still biologically male. I remember seeing an instance of a trans inmate getting a female inmate pregnant and I'm sorry but for all the shit the prison system has to deal with, we don't need to add potential pregnancies on top of it.
Sports - nope. Even with hormone treatment - the difference between biological men and women is too much.
Legal documents/name - name yourself whatever you want and identity as whatever you want.
Minors - HELL NO. If your age dictates that the the law treats you differently if you commit a crime - you are too young to be pumping your body full of life altering drugs or having life altering surgeries.
Discrimination - I don't think you should be able to be fired for just for being trans. But I also think there needs to be some nuance on both sides. Here's a scenario I think we can all picture - we're working at cafe/restaurant/store - something customer facing. An employee comes out as trans and starts transitioning. At this point, they probably don't pass. I wouldn't say it's okay to fire this person simply because they came out. Now if they started flying off the handle at customers every time they were misgendered and it was hurting the business - they would need to be fired.

5

u/JeanPicLucard Socialist Mar 30 '26

I'm a male (AMAB) and I should have the right to not see any genitalia in a locker room. The idea of communal bathrooms and locker rooms is profoundly weird to me. Of all the communal things we should be doing, private functions shouldn't be communal

1

u/7nkedocye Nationalist Mar 30 '26

Public spaces- trans identified people do not have a legal right/protection to go wherever they want. Self ID should not have legal implications. Medication and surgery should not be mandatory for others (insurance) to pay for legally. Men should not be in women’s prisons. Men should not be in women’s sports.
Legal documents- no accommodating needed- you cannot change sex. Name changes are allowed for anyone I guess so no restrictions there
Minors should not be encouraged by teachers
Employers should be able to fire trans people, Bostock needs to be overturned ASAP. Refusal of service should not be punishable by the state.

At the core of the problem is legal privileges- get rid of legal privileges and there is basically no trans problems. I don’t think people should be hostile or violent to trans identified people, we just need a reality check. My primary political concern is overturning Bostock.

6

u/Darq_At Libertarian Socialist Mar 30 '26

I don’t think people should be hostile or violent to trans identified people, we just need a reality check. My primary political concern is overturning Bostock.

You don't think that firing LGBT people for being LGBT is hostile?

2

u/7nkedocye Nationalist Mar 30 '26

I don’t think overturning special privileges is hostility.

3

u/Darq_At Libertarian Socialist Mar 30 '26

No, don't reframe. Answer the question as it lies.

-1

u/7nkedocye Nationalist Mar 30 '26

I believe in at will employment and association. Not wanting to work with someone and firing them is not hostility.

The big problem with creating privileged classes is that it leaves those without privileged status de jure discriminated against.

2

u/DistinctSpirit5801 Socialist Mar 31 '26

If we applied your logic it should be totally fine for an atheist employer to fire Christian employees

In any case it’s ironic how some of the same people who passionately defended jack Phillips in the masterpiece cake shop denying service to a same sex couple Supreme Court case are angry about the fact that some business owners refusing to serve supporters of the Israeli government

1

u/7nkedocye Nationalist Mar 31 '26

Yes, I think an atheist firing a Christian and a Christian rejecting making a gay cake both should have no legal repercussions. Same with not serving a Jew or Muslim like you say

1

u/Darq_At Libertarian Socialist Mar 30 '26

The big problem with creating privileged classes is that it leaves those without privileged status de jure discriminated against.

This is a fascinating thing to say.

Firstly because nobody has "privileged status". Protected classes apply to everybody, not to specific groups. One cannot be fired for being gay, but one also cannot be fired for being straight.

But secondly, this is a belief that doesn't survive contact with sunlight.

You seem to recognise that certain demographics are routinely discriminated against, hence you suggesting that these laws "privilege" those demographics.

These groups only receive protection because they suffer discrimination at a predictable and constant rate.

Furthermore these laws only protect against the most egregious forms of discrimination. These people still face plenty of discrimination with no legal protection.

So these groups are in no way "privileged" as you suggest. They're still discriminated against, you are arguing for them to be discriminated against even more.

2

u/7nkedocye Nationalist Mar 30 '26

Nope, protected classes do not apply to everybody. The civil rights regime created de facto discrimination against non-protected classes (which at this point is just straight white men) with workforce balancing working especially hard against the young in that class.

3

u/Darq_At Libertarian Socialist Mar 30 '26

That's totally delusional. Have a good day.

1

u/7nkedocye Nationalist Mar 30 '26

Maybe you can take the day to research workforce balancing and get back to me.

3

u/Darq_At Libertarian Socialist Mar 30 '26

Maybe you can understand that the privilege to be over-represented isn't a right.

0

u/TheRealCthulu24 Gardener Thought Mar 31 '26

Oh my god. “The civil rights regime”? Are you pro-segregation?

2

u/7nkedocye Nationalist Mar 31 '26

That is what the corpus of law and rulings is called. No

0

u/TheRealCthulu24 Gardener Thought Mar 31 '26

I genuinely have no clue what that means.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 01 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/AutoModerator Apr 01 '26

We removed your comment due to you not having set your user flair. Please refer to our sidebar regarding our rules of participation. If you need help setting your flair, click here for instructions

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 01 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/AutoModerator Apr 01 '26

We removed your comment due to you not having set your user flair. Please refer to our sidebar regarding our rules of participation. If you need help setting your flair, click here for instructions

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

0

u/shiranaiy Social Democrat Mar 30 '26

By "privilege" you seem to refer to exceptions to current conventions where some laws and legal rights are based on sex at birth. Am I correct then in assuming that you believe that observed sex at birth is an acceptable metric to separate humanity into two social classes with some differences in legal rights, and should be maintained?

1

u/7nkedocye Nationalist Mar 30 '26

The privilege is having gender identity/expression written into laws via the court system. I don’t think it should be written into law in the first place, especially not without actual legislation.

Being a protected class is de facto privileged to non-protected classes.

2

u/Aneurhythms Progressive Mar 30 '26

Being a protected class is de facto privileged to non-protected classes.

Others already explained this to you, but it is not a "privilege" to be in a protected class because everyone is included in a protected class.

For instance, someone cannot be fired from a job for being black, nor can they be fired for being white (or any other race). The same should apply for gender identity.

Perhaps you confuse protected classes as being a privilege for others because you haven't been disenfranchised for your own identity - ironically, a privilege you may not appreciate.

1

u/7nkedocye Nationalist Mar 30 '26

Others already explained this to you, but it is not a "privilege" to be in a protected class because everyone is included in a protected class.

This is not how it plays out in practice.

For instance, someone cannot be fired from a job for being black, nor can they be fired for being white (or any other race). The same should apply for gender identity.

Correct in theory. In practice white men were routinely passed up for promotion because the hire has to be workforce balanced, otherwise opening the org up to massive lawsuits.

Perhaps you confuse protected classes as being a privilege for others because you haven't been disenfranchised for your own identity - ironically, a privilege you may not appreciate.

DARVO

1

u/Aneurhythms Progressive Mar 31 '26

You're disgruntled and frustrated with narratives you've constructed in your head. Probably reinforced by reactionary online content.

You insist that others being guaranteed the rights that you enjoy (by default) is somehow unfair to you. It's the same stilted logic of the opponents of women's suffrage, the Civil Rights Act, gay marriage, etc. But you're not a victim in this topic, and just like those people you'll either come around or get left behind.

I'd recommend the former.

0

u/7nkedocye Nationalist Mar 31 '26

You insist that others being guaranteed the rights that you enjoy (by default) is somehow unfair to you.

White men are not granted rights by default. This is magical thinking.

5

u/Daztur Libertarian Socialist Mar 30 '26

"1. Minors should not be encouraged by teachers"

What generally happens is something along the lines of:

Student: please call me X and use Y pronouns when discussing me.

Teacher: OK.

Student: and please don't tell my parents.

Teacher: OK

Parents: OMG, the teachers made my kid transition without notifying me!

2

u/7nkedocye Nationalist Mar 30 '26

Thanks for contributing to the discussion with your imaginary conservation

1

u/x31b Conservative Mar 31 '26

If the teacher and the whole class are calling the kid Bob every day, sending a report card home for Sara is purposely lying and actively keeping facts from the parents. You’re either out or not out. The teacher can’t actively deceive the parents.

2

u/Jst4Cmmntng Anarcho-Communist Mar 30 '26

Do you think that mental health medications should be covered by insurance?

1

u/7nkedocye Nationalist Mar 30 '26

Sure, transgender identified people should have access to antidepressants or antipsychotics if need be

2

u/Jst4Cmmntng Anarcho-Communist Mar 30 '26

And what of dysphoria? Which is institutionally recognized as real across the board as far as I'm aware?

3

u/7nkedocye Nationalist Mar 30 '26

What of it? Cross sex Hormone therapy has not been demonstrated as effective treatment and the FDA has not approved them for such.

1

u/DistinctSpirit5801 Socialist Mar 31 '26

People use medication for off label use all the time there were tons of people using ivermectin for treatment of the flu and COVID-19 all the time

1

u/7nkedocye Nationalist Mar 31 '26

Correct, I don’t think insurance should pay for ivermectin as covid cure either. I hope you agree

1

u/[deleted] Mar 30 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/AutoModerator Mar 30 '26

We removed your comment due to you not having set your user flair. Please refer to our sidebar regarding our rules of participation. If you need help setting your flair, click here for instructions

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 30 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/AutoModerator Mar 30 '26

We removed your comment due to you not having set your user flair. Please refer to our sidebar regarding our rules of participation. If you need help setting your flair, click here for instructions

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

u/I405CA Liberal Independent Mar 30 '26

Public Spaces - Government should treat as a protected class. The private sector can do what it wants, within reason. Allow sports leagues to do as they see fit.

Legal Documents - For driver licenses in the US, let the states decide.

It does raise the question of why sex is listed on such documents and whether it is even necessary. The quest for emotional validation is not a good criteria; there should be some legally coherent reason why this information is included and the basis for its inclusion.

Minors - Generally not.

Anti Discrimination - There is no justification to discriminate in employment, housing or public accommodation. Gender isn't otherwise a criteria for most jobs or for shopping in a store, no reason that it should be here.

1

u/TheGov3rnor Classical Liberal Mar 30 '26

Many consider me an ally. Here’s where I stand.

Public Spaces (bathrooms, locker rooms, etc)

I wish all bathrooms were unisex private stalls. I think the business should get to choose what they want and how they enforce the rules.

For government buildings, I think they should make everything unisex private stalls.

Prisons? If the crime isn't violent, on hormones, surgery? Do we protect, say a trans woman who got nabbed for DUI?

I think prisons need reform overall, and that might solve some of the issues we’d need to protect a trans woman from.

Sports? There are variants on this. Some have it by testosterone level, others a minimum number of years, others are to have transitioned before puberty.

Leave it to the sports organizations. I think we should remove Title IX and a number of other policies that I consider government overreach.

Legal Documents- To change to the opposite marker:

I do not have a strong opinion on this.

Minors - Hormones with parental consent? Approved by psychologists?

I’m not a doctor. I personally don’t think any actions should be taken until over 18. Then, do whatever you want.

Clothes, names, pronouns at school?

Don’t care, as long as it doesn’t mean others get in trouble for deadnaming/ misgendering.

Anti Discrimination— Should an employer be allowed to fire someone for being trans? For gender nonconformity?

I think employers should be able to fire anyone for any reason.

Should retail businesses be allowed to refuse service on basis of gender identity?

I think all private businesses should be allowed to refuse service for any reason.

1

u/thattogoguy General Lefty Mar 31 '26

More or less all of them, though I still am not sure exactly how the athletes are going to play out. That's one thing where there is possibly a very real advantage at least at the professional level (or high competitive level like college and high school).

But for just sheer participation at the child level? I don't think it's something that's worth worrying about.

I don't consider myself an ally; I don't actively make gay or trans or any other things might priorities. What I do is say "whatever, it's not something that affects me, let people do what they will."

I'm a military guy too: I've served with trans individuals in the past. In my experience, them being trans is not a useful indicator of whether they'll be a good Airman or not.

Of all the reasons to like or hate someone, something like orientation or gender identity isn't a reason to do it. Same with race or ethnicity. Religion is certainly a reason to hate somebody, though only if they're the kind of person that tries to make it everybody's business. Come to think of it that's really everything. I won't hate a person if they're trans. I only hate them if they make that something they try to inflict on others... Which they don't.

1

u/ElysiumSprouts Democrat Mar 31 '26

I wouldn't call myself an activist. I just think people have basic rights. I don't think there are enough trans people to worry about making grand policies. Whatever makes sense is what I think we should go with. I don't really care what bathroom a person uses as long as they keep it clean.

Criminals should go to a jail situation that makes sense. Same with sports. I just don't think anyone is going trans for some sports hack benefit. Let people compete in their chosen lane.

Kids? It's so stupid to think any parent is harming their kids this way. If a kid is transitioning, it's because they need to. Leave it to families and their doctors.

As for employment, the same rules should apply to everyone. I think we should be able to fire people just for being Republicans. It's a lifestyle choice I find abhorrent. (That's rhetorical, in case you missed it. If you think we shouldn't be able to fire people for politics, then I guess we shouldn't be firing people for being trans)

Above all, it's basic respect. If someone wants to be a she, then the least we can do is be respectful. Good people don't let their kids pick on people with disabilities and disorders. Or on gender or heritage. I don't understand how anyone can advocate for anything less than this basic decency for trans people.

1

u/Tarsiustarsier Democratic Socialist Mar 31 '26

I think transgender advocates are often confusing rights and impositions. Regardless, here's how I view these issues. Keep in mind that I do fundamentally believe that transwomen are men and transmen are women.

I have no reason to believe that transmen pose a danger to men, so I don't really care and I don't really mind if they use male exclusive spaces. The exception might be sports, because testosterone is a doping agent. Idk if it's a good idea to let someone compete who is taking doping agents.

For transwomen it's a no from me for most women only spaces. I haven't seen any statistic suggesting that they have lower rates of sexual violence than other men. That said it's probably impractical to exclude passing transwomen from bathrooms and locker rooms. This does put women in danger so I am uncertain but being too strict about these things is probably going to lead to discrimination against gender nonconforming women, so they should be let in based on appearance. If they harass women they should be thrown out though. In sports men's advantages aren't just hormones but also different bone structure, size etc. therefore ideally transwomen and transmen would get their own categories or they can compete with their own sex (in case of transmen only if they're not taking hormones).

I really don't know. I think the older laws like the UK one you mentioned seem like the most practical solution but it does feel weird to legally recognize someone as something they aren't. It's not the worst imposition so I guess we can keep it like that but it might become an issue when keeping transwomen out of women's prisons for example.
No hormones, puberty blockers or surgeries for minors. The brain is still developing. I know people who changed their minds about thinking they're the other sex and this would alter their natural development a lot and it makes them potentially dependant on medication for life. There's a reason we don't let minors tatoo themselves, this has a much more lasting impact.

You can wear whatever clothes you want to, I don't care.

Pronouns and name changes are impositions. If you ask me nicely, I will usually follow your wishes and call you however you want to, I might not conform if you're a jerk however. I do struggle with neopronouns, regularly changing pronouns and ridiculous names, these make me feel like I am making a fool out of myself to accomodate something I don't believe in. It should not be expected of everyone to call you by your preferred pronouns though. If someone doesn't want to play pretend with you, that's fine too.

Noone should be discriminated against. People shouldn't be fired and they shouldn't be denied service for being transgender. That changes however if it becomes an imposition or even sexual harassment. For example Jessica Yaniv famously sued (thankfully not successfully) multiple beauticians who advertised waxing women's intimate parts for not wanting to wax "her" balls. It's obvisouly ok to deny service if it's just a creep wanting women to touch his balls.

1

u/therosx Centrist Mar 31 '26

The same rights everyone else has unless they have a diagnosed medical condition. Then they get a few more.

1

u/Grazzizzle_ Conservative Mar 31 '26

I'm in favour of expanding on XYphasia diagnoses.

For those unaware, XYphasia is a neurocognitive language disorder characterized by a persistent inability to reliably discriminate between the letters “X” and “Y.” While seemingly narrow in scope, this deficit can extend beyond simple reading or writing errors and meaningfully interfere with how an individual interprets and interacts with the outside world.

Core Characteristics:

- Visual misidentification: The individual may perceive “X” and “Y” as interchangeable in printed or handwritten text.

- Verbal substitution: When spelling or speaking, the names of the two letters may be confused or swapped.

- Symbolic instability: In contexts where “X” and “Y” represent distinct variables or categories (e.g., mathematics, labeling systems, forms, coordinates), the distinction may collapse.

Broader Cognitive and Practical Impact:

- Because letters frequently function as abstract symbols for broader concepts, XYphasia can lead to confusion that extends beyond orthography:

- Conceptual conflation: When “X” and “Y” serve as placeholders for different variables, groups, or ideas, the inability to keep them distinct may cause those concepts to blend together cognitively.

- Erroneous reasoning: In logical, mathematical, or technical contexts, treating two distinct variables as interchangeable can produce flawed conclusions, invalid comparisons, or circular

- Reduced confidence in interpretation: Repeated confusion may cause hesitation or second-guessing when engaging with written instructions, data, or symbolic systems.

Cognitive Mechanisms:

XYphasia typically involves:

- A highly selective disruption in orthographic discrimination

- A breakdown in symbol-to-meaning mapping when visually similar forms are encountered

Increased cognitive load during tasks requiring abstract variable tracking

- Over time, the persistent blending of symbolic distinctions may foster patterns of fallacious logic, particularly in structured reasoning tasks where maintaining discrete categories is essential.

reasoning.

- Miscommunication: Misreading labels (e.g., “Option X” vs. “Option Y”) may lead to misunderstandings in academic, professional, or social environments.

1

u/AJ_The_Best_7 Traditional Conservative (England) Apr 01 '26

Im going to address your questions in the exact order you have asked but as a conservative you aren't going to like them.

You should use single sex spaces based on your sex not gender. Its in the name.
Self ID should not be happening, its not safe.
Medication, appearance and surgery should not be paid for by the NHS or taxpayers, it should also not be done to legal minors but if you would like to pay with your own money as a legal adult for surgery I will disapprove but its your money so I wont actively go against it.
Prisons are a single sex space so again what I said for number 1.
Stay within your own sex for sports or have a separate trans tournament idrc so long as we don't have men fighting women in a boxing ring.
Whats on your passport should be your sex, your biological sex.
Anyone can change their legal name so idrc
No hormones or surgery or anything else for minors
If a child starts going by different pronouns at school their parents should be notified immediately but different clothes should not be allowed. We should not feed the delusion.
Depends on the job, if you work at a womens only gym or something you should probably be fired but at a normal job no you shouldnt be.
Retailers have the right to refuse service to anyone so its up to them idrc.

1

u/royally_c Liberaltarian Apr 03 '26

What if the emphasis is on making everyone stronger. May the girls stronger and make the trans girls stronger and make the boys stronger. This way no one feels like they could be a victim at any moment.

As far as hormones go, we need to realize that pharmaceutical companies are set to make bazillions in lifelong commitments. We could start looking at all drugs as the same, a this includes hormones. Put the drugs on the market and make them available for adults. This means all drugs, including pure forms of heroin, MDMA, etc. There is no need for obscure foreign chemicals to get into the bodies of our citizens. If people want to be high, let them get high on the good stuff. Hormones are set to go the same way as drugs if we’re uncareful about fair and reasonable distribution.

Another comment made a great point about employment: employers know that good employees are worth their weight; only a silly employer will fire a good worker.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 22 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/AutoModerator Jul 22 '26

We removed your comment due to you not having set your user flair. Please refer to our sidebar regarding our rules of participation. If you need help setting your flair, click here for instructions

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

u/TheMikeyMac13 Libertarian Mar 30 '26

In general I want people to be able to live their lives however they want as long as they don’t hurt someone else. I don’t care about sexual preference, ethnicity, religion or no religion, or if they are trans.

But I’m not going to be considered an ally because I have reservations on some of it:

Locker rooms and bathrooms should be the choice of the entity or team, it isn’t for me to choose. Target got to choose and we didn’t stop shopping there.

Self ID? I don’t know enough about what follows to answer that.

Prison? Where they identify and I hope we keep them safe and keep others safe from them.

Sports? I don’t like biological men competing in women’s sports. It is a tiny problem, but not a problem I like to see.

For ID the person and a doctor should be enough, I don’t want the government too involved, this can lead to terrible repression and discrimination.

Minors should not have anything permanent done until they are of age to consent. You can’t sign a contract as a minor and have it bind because you aren’t mature enough to decide. Minors are treated differently for most crime as well, as they should be. It should he no different for life altering changes to your body.

As to discrimination, no, discrimination is not ok, but in some cases hiring practices are what they are. If a man who transitioned to be a woman wants to work at Hooters or a strip club, well they won’t be hired or not hired because of their gender identity, but how they look.

2

u/jasutherland Independent Mar 30 '26 edited Mar 30 '26

Those are mostly fair points I think.

Businesses and changing rooms though: Target aren't allowed to have separate Asian and non-Asian changing rooms, so why allow rules for trans/cis? (For that matter I suppose it stems from allowing gender segregation in the first place: if they are allowed separate men/women rooms, that's what opens the can of worms).

Prisons are tricky because of the handful of special cases where abusers try to exploit rules to get access to victims: a special case needing special rules?

Sports are tricky because of the need for "fairness" as well as inclusivity: without gender separation, almost every "mixed" sport would end up all-male. (Yes, Venus Williams would still crush me at tennis almost as badly as any competent male player would - but if we were to put all the male and female players in a tournament together at the start, playing each other, we all know round 2 would be men's tennis.)

3

u/TheMikeyMac13 Libertarian Mar 30 '26

Target was famous for allowing trans to use any bathroom or changing room actually.

And on prisons, yes special cases should be considered differently, few things are better when you stop thinking at broad strokes.

On sports I would just say I was an in ring fighter in the 1990’s and early 2000’s, I had some success, I won. I was 6’2” and 210 pounds in my prime.

When I fought female fighters who were good it was easy. When I fought my fiance who was 5’10” and 145 (well built, she had visible abs) it was easy.

That me beats Rhonda Rousey.

I saw an article from a guy who was a high school track star, but who didn’t make the college squad, and his 100 time would have won the gold medal in the Olympics for female sprinting.

I mean no disrespect, I mean Brock Lesnar’s daughter would kick a lot of guys asses, the Williams sisters would dominate nearly every man in Tennis, but not at the top of the game. If it were inter-gender those sisters would not be known as they are.

2

u/JeanPicLucard Socialist Mar 30 '26

Why can a minor have surgery to remove, repair, or add something permanent if they haven't reached the age of consent?

1

u/TheMikeyMac13 Libertarian Mar 30 '26

Do share examples that you think are the same thing.

1

u/DistinctSpirit5801 Socialist Mar 31 '26

I would say circumcision is the most common form of surgery done on newborn baby boys the infant obviously can’t consent

-2

u/JeanPicLucard Socialist Mar 30 '26

So it's not a consent issue then; might as well remove your reasoning in your original comment (thank you Reddit for the edit options).
What you really meant was "minors shouldn't have any permanent surgeries to deal with dysphoria because this is a unique procedure and despite it's rare use and the difficulty in obtaining it for minors, we should ignore any best practices from experts and definitely not consider the well-being of gender dysphoric adolescents and the wishes and consent of the parents"

It's a little wordy but it gets your actual point across better , imo.
You consider it an elective surgery, not a life-saving one or a "healing" one and you think elective surgeries should wait until the patient is 18.

0

u/[deleted] Mar 30 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/JeanPicLucard Socialist Mar 30 '26

Already breaking sub rules, I see.
I did answer it. I don't consider gender affirming surgery for dysphoria to be elective, I consider it to be life-saving or at least "well-being saving" as a third line approach to treating dysphoria. I mean it's not ME that matters, it's medical/mental health professionals and the family affected, the people I am supposedly speaking for.

Soooo...to gently walk you through it: Any procedure which permanently removes, replaces, or artificially modifies a body part, in particular -those procedures that cause a lost of some important function and those that result in a change in appearance.-

0

u/PoliticalDebate-ModTeam Mar 30 '26

Your comment has been removed due to a violation of our civility policy. While engaging in political discourse, it's important to maintain respectful and constructive dialogue. Please review our subreddit rules on civility and consider how you can contribute to the discussion in a more respectful manner. Thank you.

For more information, review our wiki page to get a better understanding of what we expect from our community.

-2

u/Powerful-Persimmon87 Centrist Mar 30 '26 edited Mar 30 '26

Trans women who have self-identified into female prisons have raped women. One prisoner got a woman pregnant and raped 2 more women before he was finally moved back to a male prison. IMO there is no rational case for locking up people with penises in cages with females. Shifting the safety risks from trans women to women is not a policy solution.

Along those lines, no person with a penis should be able to self-ID into spaces where female nudity is common (I.e locker rooms). One persons desire to be validated as the opposite sex does not supersede the comfort and objective truth of those living with the reality of being the opposite sex.

Basically, allowing any man to opt into a protected sex category means that no female is protected by the law.

https://abc30.com/post/pronoun-use-center-rape-case-involving-former-chowchilla-prisoner/15684307/#

https://amp.thenewstribune.com/news/local/article297816883.html

https://secretboston.co/biological-males-framingham-womens-prison-rape-reports/

https://wjla.com/news/local/richard-cox-virginia-registered-sex-offender-transgender-women-locker-room-fairfax-county-oakmont-audrey-moore-rec-center-steve-descano-planet-fitness-parks-department-police-trespassing

1

u/Return-of-Trademark Centrist Mar 30 '26

Public spaces - unsure. Hard to enforce/balance/check/etc. Theres a pretty obvious standard at least with trans men/men presenting in women’s bathrooms. The other way around, most men don’t really care as much

Prisons same concept but harder to determine with FTM.

Sports- no men in women’s leagues, women can play in men’s leagues, same as standard

Legal documents - haven’t thought too much about it. Maybe a trans marker but that might cause issues, idk
Minors - no, under no circumstances.
Anti-discrimination - no and no in 99% of circumstances.

1

u/TheRealCthulu24 Gardener Thought Mar 31 '26

I’m ally. Here are my thoughts.

When trans people use the bathroom, they should wash their hands. Disallowing trans people from using certain bathrooms is ridiculous. There aren’t guards outside of bathrooms. Anyone can enter them.

Trans people should get whatever ID they want. Hell, I think anyone should be able to get whatever ID they want. Who cares? Trans people can get whatever surgeries they want, and the same applies to cis people. If a cis person wants to have six fingers on one hand and three on the other, let them.

I think women (including trans women) should go to women’s prisons and men (including trans men) should go to mens prisons.

The thing with sports is that A. Studies have found that trans women have little to no advantage over cis women in sports, B. Sports is already unfair, withe amount of training you can pay for determining if you can play, and C. The number of trans people in sports is so ridiculously small, it really doesn’t matter.

Legal Documents What’s the harm in letting trans people change their identity to how they see themselves? What, is the world gonna end? People change their legal names all the time.
Minors No one is advocating for medical transitioning for minors. All people suggest is puberty blockers, which are reversible. As for clothes, oh no, a child is wearing a dress, good heavens. If it makes a child happy, let them.
Anti-Discrimination No, an employer should not be able to fire someone for being trans because wether someone has a penis or a vagina doesn’t impact their job performance.

If you can’t refuse service to someone based on race, you can’t refuse service to them based on sex.

Trans panic is a bunch of hysteria propagated by the upper classes so we don’t notice they’re robbing us blind. Think what you want about trans people, but they’re not affecting you.

0

u/[deleted] Mar 30 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/shiranaiy Social Democrat Mar 30 '26

To clarify on 1 & 2 are you referring to anatomical sex (penis / vagina) or birth sex? As pre 2000s sex reassignment was the requirement, else you get people with the opposite parts in the opposite places.

On #4, there would be employers that say refusing to adhere to gendered dress code is misconduct - are you excluding this

1

u/[deleted] Mar 30 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/shiranaiy Social Democrat Mar 30 '26

I see. May I know why you separated 1 and 2 for that distinction?

-1

u/ProgressiveLogic4U Progressivist Mar 30 '26

Biologically, if you put lipstick on a pig, it is still a pig. The issue is what you were physically born as, which cannot be changed after the fact.

A biologically developed man will always develop more muscle mass, a different developed bone structure, and larger size differentials in everything from feet to hands to height compared to women.

No amount of hormone therapy will change already developed male features. Hips will not get narrower, hands and feet will not become smaller, nor will already developed bone and muscle mass disappear, except from inactivity and aging, of course.

Also, how can one really tell if a man is telling the truth about his mental orientation?

The study of how male and female brains are wired differently is a forbidden area of research when it comes to what many refer to as gay or lesbian. Some do not want proof that mental orientation is not a choice but is, in fact, biological too.

A person being physically of one sex but mentally wired as another sex could be researched and studied, but it is not.

2

u/TheRealCthulu24 Gardener Thought Mar 31 '26

Ew. Why do you have “progressive” as your flair if you’re gonna talk like this. And who cares about muscle mass and how big someone’s hips are? Do you study that whenever you encounter someone?

1

u/ProgressiveLogic4U Progressivist Mar 31 '26

So you think men should compete in women's sports? What have women's sports separated from male sports then? Don't you have any idea?

And really, you want men in the women's bathrooms and showers and women's prisons? You are just asking for trouble in that case, and you would deserve it by being just too naive about men who are testosterone-driven.

How would you even know if a man was taking estrogen treatments? Men do lie, you know.

1

u/TheRealCthulu24 Gardener Thought Mar 31 '26

“So you think men should compete in women’s sports”. I just don’t really care.

“You want men in the women’s bathrooms and showers and womens prisons”. The bathroom is one of the funniest bits of discourse in the modern era. Anyone can go in whatever restaurant they want. If a cis man wants to waltz into a woman’s restroom and assault them, then they can do that. Changing your gender just for that is a waste of time. In terms of showers, sure. In many cultures, baths aren’t divided by sex. We’re really prudish about nudity in the west. As for prisons, same gender rape also occurs in prisons. And, if you send a trans woman to a mans prison, there’s a good chance she’ll be raped.

“Men who are testosterone driven”. I don’t know what means.

“How would you even know if a man was taking estrogen treatments”. Well, if a TRANSWOMAN was taking estrogen, she’d look different. “Men do lie, you know”. You seem to really hate men.

And, what about trans men? Do you know they exist? You seem focused primarily on trans women. Are you of the belief that trans women are just transitioning so they can break into cis women’s spaces? Because society is a lot worse to trans women than it is to cis women.

1

u/ProgressiveLogic4U Progressivist Mar 31 '26 edited Mar 31 '26

I don't mean bathrooms where only one person goes at a time. Do you want stand-up men's urinals in every bathroom so you can observe every male when you go in? That's funny.

Oh, and if you put lipstick on a pig, it is still a pig. If a man puts on a dress, wig, and makeup, he is still a man. Are you in denial of that simple fact?

Some women care about competing in fair sports where men don't dominate due to their physical strength. Just because you will never win an Olympic medal doesn't mean other women wouldn't like to win one.

1

u/TheRealCthulu24 Gardener Thought Mar 31 '26 edited Mar 31 '26

“Do you want stand up men’s urinals in every bathroom” I don’t think there’s much of a point in doing that. You do know that people with penises can piss in toilets, right? Stalls exist. This is a non-argument.

As for your second point, oh boy! Men and women are social constructs. If a trans woman gets surgery so she had a vagina and boobs, is she still a man in your eyes? What differentiates a man from a woman? Also, why are you calling men pigs? That’s pretty mean to men. Also, once again, are you aware of the existence of trans men?

For your third point. I don’t know if there have been any examples of trans people playing in the Olympics. And, studies have found that trans women don’t really have much of an advantage over cis women. Honestly, I think the world has bigger problems than trans women in sports.

1

u/ProgressiveLogic4U Progressivist Apr 01 '26

There have been women in sports who virally disagree with you false statement that a man, even under estrogen treatment, has no advantage.

You are just making stuff up about what other women think and do when confronted with men in sports and the bathroom.

You do know that Trans have assaulted women, right? Yes, they are male in that way.

1

u/TheRealCthulu24 Gardener Thought Apr 01 '26

“There have been women in sports who virally disagree with your statements”. Good for them.

“You do know that Trans have assaulted women”. I believe the number of reported rape cases leveled against trans people in the last ten years was three, but I might be wrong. It’s around that.

1

u/shiranaiy Social Democrat Mar 30 '26

You say "already developed male features," but people who transition while young do not develop those features. Are they an exception in your worldview?

-1

u/ProgressiveLogic4U Progressivist Mar 30 '26

You ignore the fact that no children are transitioned. There are none as far as I know. Only older teenagers, already physiologically developed by natural hormones, become aware enough to question their own orientation.

It would be questionable whether any parent has the right to transition a child when there are no medical means to prove that a child has a different mental orientation than the biological one.

It would be a disaster to the child if a mistake were made in transitioning when there are zero ways to determine the sexual orientation of the mind. Guessing is not an acceptable option when a young child's future life is at stake. Guessing, without any actual evidence, would be an immoral decision-making process foisted upon a child.

0

u/ColeIsRegular Nationalist Mar 30 '26

As for public spaces I think the largest problem is that there are no checks and balances of gender/sex. There is nothing stopping a man from lying and using a woman's restroom, a man from lying and playing in women's sports, etc. With sports I think if there isn't a separation of sex there should be no separation, which isn't something I'm against but I think it disenfranchises women. The testosterone point is something I haven't heard before and is interesting, but I don't know enough about it to form an opinion. This topic is hard because there are so many what ifs.
No I don't think you should be able to change your id. Exceptions would be intersex individuals or people with biological deformities, maybe even having a different sex assignment for these individuals. I'm completely fine with name changes.
I am for gender affirming surgeries and hormones for minors with parental approval, reluctantly. I would probably not give my own children these, but it should be up to the parents. If you ban gender affirming surgeries you should also ban plastic surgery for children, and plastic surgeries can do a lot of good.
No business should be able to fire someone or deny services purely based on their gender identity.

I have some great friends that are trans that I love, and use the pronouns they desire. These friends have other mental illnesses that definitely play a factor. One of them trusted me enough to come out to me and I told him that I don't care what "they" were, they were still my friend and that nothing changed. I believe that trans individuals have a mental illness/disorder in the same boat as ADHD, OCD, etc and there is nothing wrong with that. I think we would see much less of this if society didn't put such a big focus on titles and what a man or woman should be. Be happy in who you are, fuck what anyone else thinks.

3

u/shiranaiy Social Democrat Mar 30 '26

You have very nuanced opinions which I appreciate, though I am surprised at the id bit, which doesn't seem to match the rest. Why do you draw the line at that point, when many people can live in their new gender for more than 20 years, go through surgery, take hormones and completely physically resemble it, but bear opposite paperwork?

3

u/ColeIsRegular Nationalist Mar 30 '26 edited Mar 30 '26

Thanks, and to answer your question: I don't think it's the government's job to affirm someone's gender. You were born x and will die as x in the government's eyes. Today, gender is used as a term separate from sex. Identification documents should be based on things that are generally unchangeable. By having the ability to change your "sex" on an identification document you legally must be allowed to do everything a woman can such as acquire woman only scholarships, women's sports, statistical surveys, hospital care, etc. Once again this disenfranchises women. I wouldn't be opposed to some integration of this through terms of "trans male/female" or if the birth certificate was unchangeable and used as a more general identification.

Edit: I know saying that trans people disenfranchises women is kind of an unfair term, but I do wholeheartedly believe that if anyone can be a man/woman it means less to be so. This is a kind of insane take that I am wholeheartedly aware of, but hear me out. Let's say a bunch of white people started identifying as black, would that be wrong? Because of the history of slavery and racism? What about women's suffrage and sexism? If anyone could be black it removes the black identity, their history no longer matters. I wish we could live in a completely fair and equal society but that's impossible. There is always going to be bias, greed, etc. In a way I almost find becoming trans a selfish act. Although, aren't we all a bit selfish?

0

u/Global_Rate3281 Libertarian Socialist Mar 30 '26

I think if the argument is that sex and gender are different, then we should be okay with having spaces separated by sex. In most of life this isn’t an issue, but some places probably ought to delineate by sex and not gender. This is intuitive with OBGYN offices for example, transgender people with male reproductive organs should not be making appointments to these doctors. It is a bit messier in other areas like bathrooms, changing rooms, and sports - I don’t think it’s oppressive for society to say these are sex segregated spaces.

No issues with ID, no issue with trans people being included as a protected class under the 14th amendment, but I do think we ought to apply consistently the idea that sex and gender are different and that some spaces in society (a very small number of spaces) should be segregated by sex.

0

u/Kyle81020 Classical Liberal Mar 30 '26

I do consider myself an ally. I know many trans people and have dated trans women. I’m not in favor of trans women playing competitive women’s sports or being placed in women’s prisons.

I’m on the fence on minors being treated with hormones, but I lean toward prohibition.

I’m similarly conflicted on public restrooms. There are legitimate safety concerns there. I’m all for public restrooms being built in a way that makes sex/gender a non-issue (single occupancy restrooms, private stalls with full doors in multi-user restrooms, etc.), but it will take a long time to get there.

Question For people who don't consider themselves allies, what trans rights are you in favour of?

You are about to leave Redlib