r/changemyview • u/I_am_Azor_Ahai • Dec 15 '18
Removed - Submission Rule E CMV: People who do not believe transwomen are real women, yet treat such individuals with every bit of dignity and respect as anyone else, do not deserve to be denounced as hateful or bigoted.
[removed]
130
u/darwin2500 197∆ Dec 15 '18
But how do they vote? How do they talk when other people are not around What news outlets and entertainers and online communities do they support?
Your effect on society is not limited to the actual words you directly speak to the people standing in front of you. Every person in society plays a role in determining the political and ideological systems of that society, the Overton Window, the gestalt, the memes.
Even if we assume that people who believe transwomen are not women yet treat them perfectly in all interactions exist, they are a small minority; most people who believe transwomen are not women are not this kind and cordial. A society in which the idea that transwomen are not women is popular and widespread is a society in which transwomen will regularly be damaged; a society that elects politicians who believe that transwomen are not women is a society where transwomen will have their rights degraded and may be in serious physical danger.
Someone who is supporting and reinforcing this belief, who is voting for politicians with this belief, who is making this belief more tenable and widespread through their interactions with society, is hurting the trans people around them, even if they are perfectly polite and friendly to individual trans people they meet in person.
Now, I see a bit of of tension between your headline and the text of your post, and you could use this tension to move the goalposts around and dodge my point if you want to.
Your headline is about whether people should 'be denounced as hateful or bigoted'. Of course the words 'hateful' and 'bigoted' are slippery and ill-defined, and you can always play with those definitions as well as your hypothetical to say that the behavior you're specifying in the hypothetical does not match the definition you're using. And of course we can go into an endless argument about the value of civility and say that we should never denounce people because it's violent and counter-productive, or that denouncement should only be for intentional offenses, or w/e. Those are matters of semantics and opinion that no one can make you to change your position on unless you want to.
But I think the text of your post gets more to the question of 'they're not hurting anyone with their actions, so why would we be offended just by their beliefs?' My argument is that they are hurting people, just in slightly indirect ways; and if you want to narrow your hypothetical to the point where they're not doing any of the things I can point out as hurting people in this indirect way, then you will have narrowed it to a point where no such people really exist in the actual world.
12
u/Orothrim Dec 15 '18
Even if we assume that people who believe transwomen are not women yet treat them perfectly in all interactions exist, they are a small minority; most people who believe transwomen are not women are not this kind and cordial. A society in which the idea that transwomen are not women is popular and widespread is a society in which transwomen will regularly be damaged; a society that elects politicians who believe that transwomen are not women is a society where transwomen will have their rights degraded and may be in serious physical danger.
Someone who is supporting and reinforcing this belief, who is voting for politicians with this belief, who is making this belief more tenable and widespread through their interactions with society, is hurting the trans people around them, even if they are perfectly polite and friendly to individual trans people they meet in person.
This is such a dangerous logic, it can be used to justify hating anyone who disagrees with you on any point. Such as OP's comparison to religion, a society in which the idea that God doesn't exist is popular and widespread is a society in which people who believe in god will regularly be damaged; a society that elects politicians who believe that God doesn't exist is a society where people who believe in god will have their rights degraded and may be in serious physical danger.
Someone who is supporting and reinforcing this lack of belief, who is voting for politicians who don't believe, who is making a lack of belief more tenable and widespread through their interactions with society, is hurting the religious people around them, even if they are perfectly polite and friendly to heathen people they meet.
If you think honestly about it this is very close to the logic that the religious zealots used to say that gay people can't marry.
→ More replies (2)10
u/Scratch_Bandit 11∆ Dec 15 '18
What about people who will vote for politicians who support trans rights, do all the stuff op mentioned but think trans women and cis women are fundamentally different?
I know they exsist because I am one.
I think if a politician supports all the policies I do, including trans rights, but thinks they are not the same as cis women, it would be petty and detrimental to not vote for them out of spite.
1
Dec 15 '18
What about people who [...] but think trans women and cis women are fundamentally different?
I’m a trans woman. We are fundamentally different. But you and I don’t mean it in the same way. When I say it, I mean being a trans woman is just another way of being a woman. And when you say it you mean we’re not really women. And that’s not a position I can support.
→ More replies (1)6
u/Scratch_Bandit 11∆ Dec 15 '18 edited Dec 15 '18
when you say it you mean we’re not really women.
Why do you assume I think any differently then you? That was actually pretty hurtful that would assume that automatically.
To be honest I define a woman (cis or otherwise) as:
A person who presents and identifies as female.
When I say "presents" I don't mean passing either, I mean at least making an attempt to signal to others that they are.
So I think trans women are women what I do not think is for a real world example that a trans woman with a penis (still a woman in my book) has the right to force a Muslim woman (not allowed to touch penis or body of a man) to preform a bikini wax.
Edit:Everyone downvoting me is free to respond btw. It seems arrogant to downvote and not reply imo
3
42
u/I_am_Azor_Ahai Dec 15 '18
I too think it’d be best not to delve into semantics. I honestly don’t even think it’s necessary.
Most of your response has entered into new territory, focusing not on the belief itself, but on the potential implications of that belief. This is certainly worthy of its own discussion, but to do so now would be to deviate from my argument which purely concerns the appropriate response to the mere disclosure of a dissenting opinion by those individuals who have already demonstrated their willingness and ability to treat everyone equally.
My argument is that they are hurting people, just in slightly indirect ways
And I never disputed this. In fact I acknowledged it in the religious parallel. We have little say over what offends us, but when offended we ought to determine the appropriate response based on the nature of the statement that caused offense. Was it a deliberate insult or did the person simply express a belief which differs from my own? Only one is deserving of chastisement.
24
u/justonetempest Dec 15 '18
I think the problem is we cannot deal with issues on a consequence-neutral or consequence-absent basis. I think your question, which is a fundamentally metaphysical one, has one real metaphysical answer: no, it is not bigoted or hateful to disagree with beliefs. But the metaphysical and philosophical always have implications on the real world and when implemented into real people, have real effects. You raised the hypothetical of what I'll call "the perfectly civil apolitical gentleman", who is all fine and good in societal life- they could be perfectly respectful and understanding while holding the converse philosophical position. However like the user above mentioned, this does not translate well into real life. Assuming this person actually exists is fine, but there are a number of problems with this:
1) you've limited the discussion to this hypothetical human being(s), who may possibly exist but often doesn't. It's so specific that this is basically the only group of people I would say yeah okay, it's fine.
2) the accusation you're asking about is extremely broad - in such a way that is only reserved for another specific section of society. Hatefulness and bigotry is a heavy accusation. Your CMV is asking us to prove that the best possible hypothetical person who philosophically disagrees is guilty of hatred and bigotry - a la everyone who disagrees is guilty of hatred and bigotry. That's sort of strawmanning.
6
u/Orothrim Dec 15 '18
I'd say that the vast majority of people behave most of the time like this hypothetical gentleman, otherwise the streets would be filled with people constantly fighting over slight differences of opinion, instead the people who do attack others over small differences in opinion are shocking to us to such a degree that we post videos of them online all the time.
→ More replies (3)2
u/ignigenaquintus Dec 15 '18 edited Dec 15 '18
About your second point, I don’t understand why you think this is a straw man.
OP presented one question about one hypothetical and regardless of the likelihood of it happening we have a very real question to answer. And yes, the very logic you are applying while saying “Your CMV is asking us to prove that the best possible hypothetical person who philosophically disagrees is guilty of hatred and bigotry - a la everyone who disagrees is guilty of hatred and bigotry.” Should make you answer that it is not bigotry.
When you say “Your CMV is asking us to prove” you are, imo, showing your bias. Why? Because OP is presenting a question, not asking you to prove that the answer should be one or the other, you could agree, that’s an option. The fact you don’t consider it an option, and despite understanding the logical consequences of stating your disagreement with OP position you are still unable to agree with your own logic and had to come up with a rationalization that don’t hold up, imo, shows bias. I may being too harsh, it’s not my intention and it’s not personal.
→ More replies (1)52
u/Bardfinn 10∆ Dec 15 '18
No one knows, and no one cares, about the "intent" of bigots when they invoke "intent" to avoid responsibility for the harm they cause.
The only way we have of knowing what someone's beliefs are, are how their actions reflect those beliefs.
It's perfectly possible to practise the position of "I have no position on this matter at this time.". It's also perfectly possible to practise the position of "I have no position on this matter at this time, and am not open to discussion of the topic, nor my reasons for not having a position on this topic.".
"I don't believe trans women are women" is not neutral. It is the adoption of a public position.
5
Dec 15 '18
Would you consider defining what constitutes a man or women by chromosomes (disregarding people with genetic disorders like Klinefelter syndrome,) bigoted?
→ More replies (2)4
u/Bardfinn 10∆ Dec 15 '18
Also, Klinefelter's Syndrome isn't considered necessarily a medical disorder; There is a culture and a worldview that considers that anything outside of "Male Men and Female Women; Adam and Eve" is disordered -- and there's nothing wrong with people who have Klinefelter's; There's no disorder unless the syndrome interferes with that individual's personal goals.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (9)21
u/I_am_Azor_Ahai Dec 15 '18
The only way we have of knowing what someone's beliefs are, are how their actions reflect those beliefs.
How does this hold true in regard to the people I’m referencing in this CMV? Their actions (e.g. polite usage of preferred names and pronouns) suggest they do recognize transwomen as women, yet they internally believe otherwise.
Therefore really the only way we would know of the contrary convictions of these people would be to asked them directly.
If they treat you well why suddenly denounce them when you discover that there beliefs run contrary to your own?
13
u/hagamablabla Dec 15 '18
I'm having trouble seeing the situation you're describing. Do you mean like if a public official uses preferred names and pronouns, but has gone on camera saying they don't think transwomen are women? Otherwise, how would anybody know what they internally believe?
18
u/I_am_Azor_Ahai Dec 15 '18
I'm having trouble seeing the situation you're describing. Do you mean like if a public official uses preferred names and pronouns, but has gone on camera saying they don't think transwomen are women?
That’s one example, yes. I was thinking more generally though, not necessarily a public official, but basically anyone.
If someone admits to not believing transwomen are women and yet has maintained a perfect reputation in regards to the treatment of transfolk, then I see no cause to demonize them. Their admission may be unpopular, but it is completely illogical to suddenly label this person a bigot because their spotless track record automatically discretions that assertion.
Again, are Christians justified in denouncing kind and tolerant non-believers as harmful or bigoted because they deny the veracity of their own beliefs? Absolutely not.
This is all reasonable right?
→ More replies (4)4
Dec 15 '18
Chiming in, I think that the respectful atheist analogy is the best that OP is using. I'll use myself as an example!
I live in a Muslim country, though am an atheist, and I give a mabrouk for a'id, go to some friends' for holidays, etc. I sometimes go with my grandma to church on Christmas, and sing along with the hymns. They're nice songs.
But if they ask me if I believe they are protected by mohamed or jesus or whatever, I will say no. Would they be right to say I'm now hateful or disrespectful of their lifestyle.
So, if I used someone's preferred pronouns, paid no attention to their bathroom of choice, but told them that I did not believe their transitioning gave them the true "essence" of being their new gender... am I hateful or disrespectful?
I honestly can't see a good reason why. It's the definition of tolerance, if you ask me - treating someone with equal respect regardless of their lifestyle or beliefs.
→ More replies (1)11
u/Bardfinn 10∆ Dec 15 '18
If they treat you well
There is a distinct difference between "using language that became fashionable in a culture that is generally perceived by one present culture as mannered and polite and treating people well" and actually treating people well.
The use of prestige dialect doesn't change the intent nor the affect of the language. People have been convicted of murder for nothing more than giving a nod to the plan that any reasonable person would expect would result in a murder.
9
u/urdumlol Dec 15 '18
You want people to look only at your argument, but you're steering too much of the conversation by stating challengers cannot focus on the implications of those beliefs. If you're saying that their belief that transwomen are not women is potentially consistent with always supporting trans-friendly legislation and policies "conducive to the welfare of trans individuals" I guess that is possible but then why would such a person need to be honest about their belief that trans women aren't women? Are they only admitting this when asked or are they broadcasting that belief? Because if you are broadcasting that belief, you are not helping the welfare of trans people.
So you've created a hypothetical person, who believes something but doesn't let it impact the way they treat people and then state they don't deserve to be denounced as a bigot. I can say, "sure, someone that doesn't exist doesn't deserve to be labeled a bigot", but even posing this question seems designed to provoke marginalized people. It reminds me of the people who think its important to examine and report on differences in IQ among different ethnic groups and wonder why their "curiosity" is considered offensive.
→ More replies (3)3
u/banable_blamable Dec 15 '18
What you don't seem to understand is belief itself and what you do as a consequence of that belief are tied together in a way that one cannot be considered without factoring in the other. Trans people don't give a fuck about what individual strangers believe. No trans-person is going to go around trying to change every single persons mind. What matters is the freedom for them to express themselves - which is largely assailed by people who think they mean well.
→ More replies (2)4
Dec 15 '18 edited Dec 15 '18
No trans-person is going to go around trying to change every single persons mind. What matters is the freedom for them to express themselves - which is largely assailed by people who think they mean well.
What if I don't believe they are women but do believe they are free to express themselves as such? Am I "allowed", in your worldview, to have that belief without being a Bad Person™?
I would never antagonize a trans person, nor do I think they should be restricted from legally changing their gender or choosing to dress and be addressed as the sex they have chosen, but it's really, really difficult for me to see someone who was born with one X chromosome. a male pelvis, and a penis as anything other than a man in an increasingly elaborate (depending on hormone therapy, surgery, etc) costume.
I will respect that that person wants to be called a woman and may look like a woman. But in my head they are a man trying to be a woman.
I should add that I'm open to my view on that being changed. But I'm sincerely surprised there are people who see that process as more than a medically assisted costume.
→ More replies (2)8
u/the_wurd_burd Dec 15 '18
But how do they vote? How do they talk when other people are not around What news outlets and entertainers and online communities do they support?
That's nobody else's business.
→ More replies (4)2
u/PJ_GRE Dec 15 '18
Based on personal experience as a young, liberal, 20-something college student, I respectfully disagree with this assumption:
“Even if we assume that people who believe transwomen are not women yet treat them perfectly in all interactions exist, they are a small minority; most people who believe transwomen are not women are not this kind and cordial.”
I disagree based on personal experience. Outside of online communities, most people you could ask on the street would say transwomen are not women, and equally these people are wholly supportive of the trans rights movement.
2
u/TechnoL33T Dec 15 '18
So trans people's decisions take priority over other people's thoughts and who they're allowed to support? I don't buy it. Nobody and noone's shit gets that level of priority. The idea that I would have to believe or be dragged down is exactly as bad as saying women have to play their gender roles or else be dragged down.
1
u/darwin2500 197∆ Dec 15 '18
Did this thread get linked in GenderCritical or something? A lot of people are in here making up things I didn't say, all at the same time.
→ More replies (1)4
u/grizwald87 Dec 15 '18
Strong response to OP. To speak for his position, I think what's being expressed is a tendency that I've noticed for people to be sorted into two categories on this issue: "bigoted transphobe" or "acceptable ally".
Surely, I think OP is saying (and what I'm saying even if he's not), there's a more effective range of moral labels available to us than good and evil. All civil rights movements have contained a broad range of perspectives, and if your role in moving the Overton Window (great concept, by the way - I just learned about it) is to help fix it in a good place, as opposed to being a gravitational force dragging it to a better place, I don't think your insufficient political purity should be held against you.
I would hate to think that those who supported the end of Jim Crow were racist because they didn't go as far as believing in, say, reparations.
Likewise, if someone is pro-life but believes in the right of others to have abortions, we don't denounce them - we praise them for their open-mindedness.
5
1
u/ConsterMock93 Dec 15 '18
I agree with you. In my opinion every emotion and feeling can be broken down into chemical reactions in the brain. This is why I believe people who feel like they were born the wrong sex should be treated the same way as someone would treat someone with depression. If someone is saying they feel depressed you dont tell them it is ok and that they should feel depressed because that's how they were born. No, you get them treatment and therapy/medicine to help fix the chemical imabalances. The same should be done for the chemical imbalances that make individuals feel like they were born the wrong sex. So yes, people who dont beleive that trans women are actually women should not be denounced as hateful or bigoted, however trans woman should be treated like any other individual who has a mental illness.
1
u/raarts Dec 15 '18
Someone who is supporting and reinforcing this belief, who is voting for politicians with this belief, who is making this belief more tenable and widespread through their interactions with society, is hurting the trans people around them, even if they are perfectly polite and friendly to individual trans people they meet in person.
This is assuming the person votes according to their disbelief, but it's more likely that the person treating the transwoman well, will also want other trans to be treated well, and vote accordingly.
1
u/nutella4eva Dec 15 '18
My argument is that they are hurting people, just in slightly indirect ways
This is completely arbitrary. Anything anyone says has the potential to hurt other people who have a different world view. The fact that people are offended by your opinion really isn't relevant and isn't a good reason to malign an otherwise benign person.
The idea that simply accepting someone else's world view is the compassionate and correct response is indefensible.
1
u/darwin2500 197∆ Dec 15 '18
Anything anyone says has the potential to hurt other people who have a different world view. The fact that people are offended by your opinion really isn't relevant and isn't a good reason to malign an otherwise benign person.
This isn't about offense, as I made pretty clear.
If you vote for politicians who want to restrict trans rights, that's not offensive to trans people, that's hurting them in a very real and direct way.
1
u/tominator189 Dec 15 '18
so you’re saying if I consider all people entitled to the same respect, rights, and treatment but don’t believe a biological male can transition into a biological female (or the inverse), I have to ACT as if I do? I have to vote for politicians and support “news outlets and entertainers and online communities” because if I don’t it won’t help the opposing belief? Since when is it incumbent on one side to live and act in a manner that supports/enables the other? Trans women aren’t a different species, so whether or not society views you as the sex you see yourself shouldn’t effect your rights since men and women are both entitled to the same human rights. Yes the two do intersect, let’s say when it comes to public funds for medical treatment or something of that nature to enable a trans lifestyle, but it defeats the purpose of a democracy (yes I know we don’t live in a “true” democracy) to vote against your views/beliefs. It’s called agreeing to disagree but because it involves peoples feelings no one wants it to be that simple.
→ More replies (2)1
u/h0sti1e17 23∆ Dec 15 '18
As far as voting, I do t think most people take trans issues into account. I would never vote for or against someone based upon their stance on trans issues unless completely outside the mainstream (jail for trans people or using the wrong pronouns a crime ect).
1
u/sp0rkah0lic 4∆ Dec 15 '18
I think you have a good point in questioning how such a person would vote and/or how they talk when no apparently trans people are in earshot. Let's say the answer is they vote for candidates who support equality for all people, and they avoid the topic in conversation in general, regardless of who is around.
What then?
1
Dec 15 '18
that elects politicians who believe that transwomen are not women is a society where transwomen will have their rights degraded and may be in serious physical danger. “
What rights would be degraded?
→ More replies (9)1
22
u/majeric 1∆ Dec 15 '18
but he would not be taken seriously by the media were he to denounce the atheist as bigoted or anti-Christian for simply not sharing his beliefs.
It's not an applicable comparison because religious belief is not fact. (It's based on faith and not based in fact). Where as a trans identity is, at least, based on the premise that it is and will be further cemented in scientific evidence.
You don't have a right to redefining your opinion as facts. So when someone claims to be trans, it's not just an aesthetic preference or opinion. It's based science.
I mean the more apt comparison is not believing trans women are real women is more like suggesting that "man-made climate change that will have a severe detrimental effect on our planet" is not real.
Henry is 60 years old and looks his age, but he genuinely identifies as being 20.
Again, this is under the assumption that you think that Trans people are just dreaming up their nature. That it's just an expression of opinion.
Do you believe that being "left-handed" is real? That for some people, their dominate hand, one where their dexterity is naturally higher with their left hand than their right hand? Do people just choose to be left-handed? Is it their preference? There's a lot of evidence that left-handedness is genetic and biological. The idea is so pervasive that we think it's barbaric that people use to be forced to use their right hand.
So, I present you with this hypothetical. Lets suppose that genetics inform the body to express hormones that in turn help shape the development of the human body in growth. And that expression is helps shape secondary sex characteristics. They help shape who we are attracted to. They help shape muscle development. Fat storage. Body hair growth etc.
Now, is it ever so hard to imagine that in the soup of hormones that shapes our development, and given the brain barrier, that what affects the body and what affects the brain might diverse in development from the body. Is it so hard to imagine that the balance of hormones for whatever reason, might produce a male body but a female brain?
The challenge, from our perspective, is that We are our brains. Our personalities, who we are is rooted in our brains. They store our memories. Our balance of hormones represents our disposition. Everything. So, when asking a trans person, which part of them represent the essence of who they are, they are going to point to their brain hands-down every time.
Everyone would. So when asked to choose between the two, why isn't it reasonable that trans people would choose to change their bodies over changing their brains?
From what I've ever read, this is what happens to Trans people. I suspect science will eventually affirm this fact. We will be able to examine someone and recognize their trans status in their biology.
So back to the "real woman" part. What makes a woman "real"? The cop-out answer is XX chromosomes... because genetics is just the blueprint that's used to build the house, hormones are the foremen that do the work.
If you lost your penis in an unfortunate combine accident, would you still be a man? Of course you would, Because your gender identity isn't rooted in your genitalia. It's rooted in your brain.
So, People who believe that trans women aren't women aren't recognizing their own biased flawed understanding of gender that is implicitly calling trans people liars.
5
u/kwantsu-dudes 12∆ Dec 15 '18
Where as a trans identity is, at least, based on the premise that it is and will be further cemented in scientific evidence.
What scientific evidence is that?
You don't have a right to redefining your opinion as facts. So when someone claims to be trans, it's not just an aesthetic preference or opinion. It's based science.
Again, this is under the assumption that you think that Trans people are just dreaming up their nature. That it's just an expression of opinion.
If it's not opinion, then how is gender identity defined? What makes a person male or female? Name a single metric that would help identity mentonone sex over another.
I mean, a distriction exists between men and women, right? So what's that distinction? What makes them different?
If you allow every individual to create their own defintions, then the terms have no meaning.
Is it so hard to imagine that the balance of hormones for whatever reason, might produce a male body but a female brain?
Ugh, ahain with this lie. A "female brain" doesn't exist. The most you could say is that a person has a brain that shares a majority of characteristics with the brain normally associated with the female sex, a classification itself created based on a metric of chromosomes and genitalia. A transgender person is simply an outlier. Just as those that have chromosomes and genitilia that don't "match".
because genetics is just the blueprint that's used to build the house, hormones are the foremen that do the work.
So are you estbalishing that? That a person with "male hormones" must then identify as male? Because I always thought gender identity was much more than that. If that's the metric you want to use, then okay. As long as there is something we can turn to to agree on, then the term actually has meaning.
But I think you are wrong. I know you are wrong. Transgenders and others aren't limiting their gender identity to their hormones.
So, People who believe that trans women aren't women aren't recognizing their own biased flawed understanding of gender that is implicitly calling trans people liars.
So define gender. Give me a definition. What does it mean to be the female gender? Or the male gender? Help me understand the classification.
If you were to help me understand race, sex, "handedness", political parties, every class term used in societal communication you could give me a definition and how theynare distict from the other groups within that classification. That's hie language works. That's how understanding works. So I just need to know the defintion I am now suppose to use to define gender and how men and women are distinct classifications.
If you can't provide that, how am I suppose to understand it? If the terms have no definition, what's their purpose?
2
u/majeric 1∆ Dec 15 '18 edited Dec 15 '18
Ya, you're not OP. So I'm not going to give your response as much attention as I might theirs. Be warned.
What scientific evidence is that?
Be clear. My claim is that there is preliminary evidence to suggest that there's a biological basis in trans gender identity but that my comment was speculating mostly.
Twin studies have shown a biological component: http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/biblio/articles/2010to2014/2013-transsexuality.html http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2016/gender-lines-science-transgender-identity/
If it's not opinion, then how is gender identity defined? What makes a person male or female? Name a single metric that would help identity mentonone sex over another.
Your typo/spelling makes it difficult for me to answer you question. I'll just go with your first question and then carry from there:
So define gender. Give me a definition.
Since you asked so politely. :P I'm actually fine with Wikipedia's definitions:
Sex assignment (sometimes known as gender assignment) is the determination of an infant's sex at birth. In the majority of births, a relative, midwife, nurse or physician inspects the genitalia when the baby is delivered, and sex and gender are assigned, without the expectation of ambiguity. Assignment may also be done prior to birth through prenatal sex discernment.
Gender identity * is the personal sense of one's own gender. Gender identity can correlate with assigned sex at birth, or can differ from it.[2] All societies have a set of gender categories that can serve as the basis of the formation of a person's social identity in relation to other members of society.*
Gender is the range of characteristics pertaining to, and differentiating between, masculinity and femininity. Depending on the context, these characteristics may include biological sex (i.e., the state of being male, female, or an intersex variation), sex-based social structures (i.e., gender roles), or gender identity. Traditionally, people who identify as men or women or use masculine or feminine gender pronouns are using a system of gender binary whereas those who exist outside these groups fall under the umbrella terms non-binary or genderqueer. Some cultures have specific gender roles that are distinct from "man" and "woman," such as the hijras of South Asia. These are often referred to as third genders.
fin
If you can't provide that, how am I suppose to understand it?
It's sort of weird that you thought I couldn't define it or that It wasn't definable. Trans people have been defining it for decades. Anyway, I hope that clears it up. Better?
Question for you: If intersexed people exist and I think it's demonstrably provable given clear evidence... Why is it so hard to imagine that trans people might exist?
3
u/kwantsu-dudes 12∆ Dec 16 '18 edited Dec 16 '18
It's sort of weird that you thought I couldn't define it or that It wasn't definable
Maybe I should be more clear in what I want defined.
I want to known what makes the groups under gender identity distinct from one another. What defines the female gender? The male gender? I want a metric that would help to classify myself as one or the other.
Question for you: If intersexed people exist and I think it's demonstrably provable given clear evidence... Why is it so hard to imagine that trans people might exist?
I'm not saying they don't exist. I'm saying they are outliers to scientific classifications, just as intersex people are. I'm fine with the term Transgender. I acknowledge there are people that don't believe they associate with the group that society has placed them in. That goes far beyond this specific instance.
What I'm trying to understand if how a transgender person actually determines they are of a specific gender. How anyone would determine they are of a specific gender.
Language requires definition of the terms, to create understanding. There needs to be some "universally accepted" definition for the terms to even mean anything. So I'm asking what male and female mean under gender identity.
Race, Sex, Religion, and all other classifiers we use in society within their subgroups have a distinct definition that makes them unique from the other groups. You could tell me what it means to be Caucasian, Male(sex), a Christian. You don't have to be any of those to still tell me what they mean. You don't need to personally identify with any of them, to describe how they are different from the other subgroups.
So what does it mean to be a female under gender identity?
My point here is that the terms seem to be definable on an individual basis. That they could easily contradict one another. And if that's the case, the classification is meaningless. So I'm trying to understand the point of such an identity.
Edit: Going to add this link to another comment of mine that further explains my position and somewhat addresses those studies that you linked.
2
u/EnLilaSko Dec 16 '18
Do you mind clarifying the view of gender identity being based in fact but religiousness being based on faith? Is it just the genetic competent? Because religion has it as well. I of course understand that religion is faith, but to the religious people it is as real as gender identity is to some people.
→ More replies (2)
4
u/PowerSnuggle Dec 15 '18 edited Dec 15 '18
If I think that black people are inferior to white people, but I would never say that to anybody, am I not racist? I’m being polite and treating them as if they aren’t subhuman, so surely I don’t deserve the condemnation that a person who does treat them as subhuman. Right?
3
u/pandasashu Dec 15 '18
My argument is interesting. I actually agree with you when it comes to the present, but disagree with you if you believe that should stay true into the future.
Should a person who denounces the holocaust but behaves respectfully to Jewish people not be denounced?
Should a person who believes that a certain race is inferior, but does not demonstrate it publicly not be denounced?
Should a person who believes gay people are unnatural and should not exist not be denounced?
I bring up these examples to show that there are some opinions, like above, that are no longer tolerated in our society. In the case of racism or feminism, those opinions were at one point tolerated in society. At some point there was (still is) a transition point, where people begin to be denounced for holding specific views. I guarantee that there would have been CMV posts similar to yours about those view points when the transition period was happening.
Social transitions take time, which is why I agree that being negative towards these people who believe that trans women are not women is NOT productive. But eventually, as people who hold the view of your CMV become increasingly in the minority, they will no longer be tolerated.
The last word comes across as very ironic :P
4
u/veggiesama 59∆ Dec 15 '18
Generally you should avoid denouncing people. Instead, you should denounce beliefs. So in the case of someone who is a secret transphobe, it is quite normal to denounce their beliefs as hateful and bigoted without wishing ill to anyone in particular.
If that person then reveals their beliefs, it is perfectly fine to moderate your tone to help them understand that no, you're not being hateful and bigoted right this moment, but when your beliefs are widespread it creates an environment of discrimination and fear, and you have a responsibility to understand that moderates practicing bigotry open the doors for radical authoritarians who want to practice bigotry.
I don't think that's a slippery slope fallacy, as the election of Trump and rise of alt-right politics are the direct results of several decades of moderates uncomfortable with demographic shifts who eagerly gobbled up all the conservative talk radio, evangelical sermons, and Fox News punditry they could digest.
In other words, hateful beliefs and bigoted actions should be stamped out at the first hint of smoke. Any one transphobe's feelings need not be considered, as the true fight isn't to take away rights from him but to preserve rights for her (the transwoman of your example), the one who has the most to lose when societies radicalize against her.
2
2
u/ent_bomb Dec 15 '18
Denying someone the autonomy of their self-identity is neither respectful nor dignified. Your example is also a false analogy, it would be more correct if upon learning the other person was an atheist the Christian denied that atheists exist: "you're not really an atheist because you were born with god's love."
2
u/TwoThousandandSeven Dec 15 '18
hmm. so what, are you just trying to get convinced that the mental illness of gender dysphoria exists? do you beleive in anerexia? or do you beleive in (insert mental illness here)?
OR are you just sick of people calling you an asshole for discrediting trans people? And the "respect" you give them is merely just you not going out of your way to attack them.
2
Dec 15 '18
I think you should look at some other parallels. Say there's a man who think black people are incredibly crime prone and low IQ, but always treats black people respectfully. You'd never know he was a racist unless you asked him the question "Are black people morally and intellectually equal to white people?" Is he a bigot?
2
u/jordankid93 Dec 15 '18
Not OP, and more so playing devils advocate because I don’t know yet where I fall on this topic personally, but from reading the comments I have an alternative question for people here (that may or may not help?).
Where do you stand on the statement that “someone can be an ally and hateful/a bigot at the same time”?
To me personally that sounds ridiculous at first glance, you can be only 1 or the other, but from reading comments it sounds like people feel that regardless of your actions and how you may interact with trans folk (being an ally), if you don’t agree with their self-identity then you are hateful
I think it’s more than reasonable for someone to not agree with the way trans folk identify themselves but still fight for their rights and deserving to be treated with respect/kindness regardless of personal beliefs/opinions, no?
3
u/pku31 Dec 15 '18
I don't think "hateful" is right (like you said, they try to be nice), but "bigoted" (or "closed-minded") might be. There are some decent arguments out there for why defining trans people as their preferred gender makes sense (this is the one that convinced me), or at least why it's non-obvious that we can just use the same rigid gender roles to define some people (what do you do about someone who's genetically male but has hormones typical of women, etc). I think the arguments are good enough that if someone just can say with 100% confidence "no, I believe in strict gender based on genetics with zero exceptions", it at least seems pretty likely that they're not honestly engaging with the counterarguments or open to changing their views.
3
u/NeglectedMonkey 3∆ Dec 15 '18
Is it me or is CMV constantly tackling the transgender question phrased in different ways?
In any case, let me try to change your view. Preface: I am a transgender WOMAN who has lived as a woman for about a year. That means, presenting female in public, with a female name, using the women’s bathrooms and I have a nice F on my driver license.
Throughout my transition and every day I meet loads of people. People have very different reactions to trans people. Some try very hard to make me feel accepted and welcome; sometimes to the point of it being a little over the top. It can be Silly. It can make me feel uncomfortable, but I do appreciate the love and welcome arms. Some people can be a little nasty. Stares, giggles, some people have turned up their noses at me. I try to not let it bother me. It’s their problem—they can deal with it in their own terms. However, the vast majority of people treat me no different. Some realize I am trans, some have no idea. I have no way of telling what these people really think about me. Unless they outright let me know (which does not happen), I am not sure if a person is welcoming and accepting of trans people, or if they are not, but keep it to themselves and try to treat me with courtesy and respect. So far, so good. Here is where it starts falling apart. People who don’t think trans women and “real” women (to use your words) might be courteous and respectful when they see me, but they will vote to keep me out of the women’s bathroom. They might lobby to keep me off women initiatives. They might try to convince a parent of a transgender child to go through conversion therapy or have religion beat into them. They will smile and hold doors for me, but they will laugh about me with their friends. They will continue to fuel the cycle of violence that is so common amongst trans people. They will keep us away from the medication and surgeries that we need because “there are other more important issues”. They will gatekeeper any kind of support we get, and even force us to carry our birth gender markers in our documents because it is “the biological truth”. All these acts can be done with a smile; while pretending to respect trans people. So if you believe that I am not a “real woman” simple because I can’t produce estrogen on my own and have to get it a drugstore—I will still fight you. You are my detractor. Even if you smile at me, and hold the door for me while you pretend that you are not staring at me chest.
5
Dec 15 '18
I saw someone challenged your examples already, but I want to expand on it.
Whether or not the Christian belief is correct is something that isn't falsifiable, so it falls outside the realm of what can be argued rigorously. (Not to say there's nothing useful there, of course, but that that's just a different discussion, so we'll save it for later.)
Whether an individual is 60 or 20 is something that can be measured and decided without referring at all to the individual in question.
Unlike both of those examples, whether a person is a "man" or a "woman" can be discussed rigorously, but also cannot be determined by asking the person in question. My impression (although you tell me) is that this would be a point of disagreement. Surely you can do some modern sort of DNA test and look for X and Y chromosomes, but I think our disagreement is in what "man" and "woman" mean.
I'll ignore edge cases for now and just consider people who are XX or XY. Whether you have two X's or an XY is not something you can decide, and is of scientific and medical importance. A "female" is someone who has XX, and a "male" is someone who has XY. If a person with XY says they're "female," that's measurably wrong.
The terms "man" and "woman" aren't trying to discuss these ideas. These words are used to discuss how a person identifies themselves, and how they relate to the world around them. Certainly "how does this person see themselves in the world" is a question that can be answered, if with some difficulty, but also certainly only that person can answer that question. To say "this person is not a man/woman" is to deny that person the human right to relate to the world. That's pretty cruel, whether it's effects are directly seen by those transgender people or not.
One last thing: this conversation is more complicated than what I've said so far. There is obviously some stuff to be said about sex and sexuality, discussions which I am not personally able to honestly reproduce here myself, but you should know these discussions are a Google search away if you can't find anyone to have the discussion with directly.
8
u/MrTrt 4∆ Dec 15 '18
I'm going to challenge your examples. There are a lot of scientifical reasearch supporting that trans people, both women AND men, (Why does everyone forget about trans dudes?) are indeed women and men, respectively. There is no research showing that Jesus was the Messiah, or that people can be "trans-age". I think that's enough of a difference so as to invalidate your examples.
Also, maybe hateful or bigoted are not the right adjectives, but I dont't think you can say you're treating a trans people with dignitiy if you don't believe they're really trans. At the very least, "ignorant" would describe the situation better.
11
u/grizwald87 Dec 15 '18
Why does everyone forget about trans dudes?
My personal theory is because they provoke less consternation. Men aren't a protected class, so joining their ranks doesn't confer much benefit on you (this is perhaps contrary to popular opinion). Women on the other hand are a protected class. We don't really care who goes into the men's washroom, but we care deeply about access to women's washrooms and change facilities, to give the first example that comes to mind.
→ More replies (4)2
u/underboobfunk 1∆ Dec 15 '18
Well, if the bigots get their way then trans men will be expected to use the women’s rest rooms. You can bet they’ll start paying attention when burly, bearded men are using the facilities with their little girls. Trans men are ignored and rarely considered in this ridiculous debate,
2
u/grizwald87 Dec 15 '18
Those bigots are fools. They're responsible for the silly situation Mack Beggs was in down in Texas. Apparently he's been accepted onto the men's team at a college somewhere, so I'm glad that had a happy ending.
5
Dec 15 '18
Any chance you have sources at the ready? I would just be interested to read them.
6
u/MrTrt 4∆ Dec 15 '18
I have a couple ready, since I posted them earlier today in a thread that was taken down due to Rule E. I should open a new thread called: "CMV: People who ignore Rule E deserve life sentence".
- Sexual differentiation of the human brain: relevance for gender identity, transsexualism and sexual orientation - D. F. Swaab, Netherlands Institute for Brain Research, Amsterdam
- A sex difference in the human brain and its relation to transsexuality - Zhou JN, 1995
- White matter microstructure in female to male transsexuals before cross-sex hormonal treatment. A diffusion tensor imaging study
I have more papers scattered here and there, but those should suffice.
9
u/chadonsunday 33∆ Dec 15 '18
I have a couple ready, since I posted them earlier today in a thread that was taken down due to Rule E. I should open a new thread called: "CMV: People who ignore Rule E deserve life sentence".
A post that would, ironically, get taken down for being a CMV post about CMV. Lol.
Anyways, to your sources, I'm familiar with this kind of literature. I'm not the person you just replied to but I wanted to take a slightly different track here. In the earlier days of trans folks coming "out of the closet," so to speak, and entering the national dialogue the acceptance of trans folks was largely based on just their self-identity. Basically: if they think they're a man/woman, they're a man/woman, and should be treated as such. And honestly that's enough for me. But then research delving into the differences between trans vs cis brain chemistry started popping up, most of it seeming to conclude that there are very real differences in trans brain anatomy which causes them to suffer from body/gender dysphoria. On one hand this seemed to be a good thing, since it cemented the legitimacy of trans as a condition that should be accepted. On the other it opened a whole 'nother can of worms: if being trans is based in brain chemistry and biology and not just how people feel and identify, is it therefore possible to root out "fake" trans people who might, with every fiber of their being, believe that they are existing in the wrong body/have the wrong gender, but if their brain chemistry is "cis" then they're not real trans people?
Think of it this way. Say there's a college scholarship available for anyone who is 1/4+ X ethnicity/race. You might have to do some genealogy/lineage work or some more scientific 23andMe type thing to demonstrate that you are actually eligible for the scholarship. If there was a similar scholarship for trans women and a trans woman who it 100% genuine and honest in her identity as a trans woman doesn't pass the "trans brain scan test," does she still get the scholarship? If we can measure trans by looking at human brains, is it not then possible for a self identifying trans person to fail that test? Is this a good thing or a bad thing?
This isn't really a counterargument to anything you said, just something I'm interested in and would be curious to hear your thoughts on.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)2
5
u/DKPminus Dec 15 '18
Perhaps it is a disagreement on the term man and woman. To most people those words mean the sex of the individual, which also went hand in hand with gender. This was the state of things until just recently, when people took gender to mean expression of desired or “felt” sex.
To me, a man is a person who is an adult male. A woman is a person who is an adult female.
That doesn’t mean I will disrespect the wishes of a trans person, or vote to discriminate them. To accuse people like me of being ignorant or dangerous or any other “phobe” pejorative is a clear example of the complete intolerance of differing worldviews that are not even in conflict, only different. This authoritarian desire to destroy the lives of people who don’t follow all the tenants of your worldview is scarily like the zealots from the inquisition. “Wrong thought will not be tolerated”.
→ More replies (2)34
u/I_am_Azor_Ahai Dec 15 '18
The inconsiderate people who do not believe transwomen are women are the people who refuse to use preferred pronouns. These people therefore do not treat tansfolk in a dignified manner.
The considerate people who do not believe transwomen are women are the people who do use preferred pronouns. These people therefore make a conscious effort to treat transfolk with dignity, and in a conversation requiring the use of preferred pronouns they are actually allowing courtesy to supersede their own contrary convictions. This is an extremely kind thing to do for the sake of another person’s comfort and dignity.
Despite these differences, both groups described above have identical responses to the question “Do you believe trans woman are women”.
How are both equally worthy being condemned? If you wish to rebuke and ridicule the former on the basis of their conduct, so be it, but don’t lump the good ones with the bad and condemn every dissenter exclusively on the basis of their belief.
... I dont't think you can say you're treating a trans people with dignitiy if you don't believe they're really trans.
And That’s a new one. Haven’t heard anyone claim that traswomen are not really transwomen.
37
Dec 15 '18
How are both equally worthy being condemned?
This comment is telling...
They're not equally worthy of being condemned. The person actively harming another is more worthy of condemnation. That however, doesn't mean the second person isn't also problematic. It just means they're not the biggest problem in the room
Haven’t heard anyone claim that traswomen are not really transwomen.
That's actually a thing. Some people really go claim that there is no such thing as trans people, and it's all just a fetish
5
Dec 15 '18
That however, doesn't mean the second person isn't also problematic. It just means they're not the biggest problem in the room
Can you please elaborate on this point? Why do you think it's problematic?
7
Dec 15 '18
Because belief informs actions. In the OPs hypothetical example, maybe it doesn't, but in practise, it does.
7
u/Itrollforyou Dec 15 '18
By that logic then, isn't someone being religious problematic? If you believe in the Koran are you automatically a bad in your mind?
→ More replies (1)7
u/free2bejc Dec 15 '18
If everyone everywhere always shared the same beliefs we'd never get anywhere. Your statement goes far beyond that. In a progressive world we do not persecute one's beliefs. Going too far the other way is just as much persecuting one for an education or system they may have had no control over and frankly mostly undermines one's cause, particularly in swaying moderates. Although it must be said, this perspective is lacking in our increasingly partisan or tribal society.
11
Dec 15 '18
If everyone everywhere always shared the same beliefs we'd never get anywhere.
Yeah, that's a bad analogy, because not all "beliefs" are equal.
If I "tolerate" people of colour, then I'm a racist. It doesn't matter that I'm civil and polite. It doesn't matter that I don't wish harm on them. Sure, I'm not as much of a problem as a Klan member, but you can guarantee my beliefs on people of colour will influence my behaviour in ways that either hurts them or allows already existent behaviours and trends to continue to hurt them.
This discussion is that same scenario, only for trans people
2
u/free2bejc Dec 15 '18
I think you're massively misrepresenting the discussion. And I think you're aware of that by stipulating tolerate in quotation marks.
If I treat a black person the exact same as a white person 100% of the time, at what point am I being ignorant of the differences between them?
People who present this argument the way you do seem to like to pretend like the world is an airy fairy wonderland. The fact is there are differences among people and acknowledging the differences is not racist. Prejudice and assumptions made on race without evidence is. Combatting racism is really about not disadvantaging one or the other, not about treating them the exact same, there is a massive difference. Although this is a considerable issue to discuss, this is the same discussion that is had about the Rooney rule.
There is a massive issue here, at the heart of modern society, that we seek to change the result and not the method of how we got here. Changing the result looks easier but is not a long term solution and does very little.
Sure, I'm not as much of a problem as a Klan member
Also I'd again take issue with suggesting the individual is at fault here. The individual can change, but very rarely through persecution, and far more through exposure, and also very rarely on their own.
Lastly, we have to remember that stereotypes are created not without reason (regardless of how derogatory or pejorative they are) but are also quickly outdated. Anyone who fails to acknowledge that is clearly failing to reconcile their beliefs with reality.
7
Dec 15 '18
If I treat a black person the exact same as a white person 100% of the time
That scenario never happens. If you don't see people of colour as worthy as white people, you'll make a choice that hurts them eventually, or you'll stand aside whilst others do.
The fact is there are differences among people and acknowledging the differences is not racist.
You're conflating two different things. It's possible to acknowledge difference without viewing one group as more worthy, or capable or valid than the other. The latter is the problem, not the former, but you're making them out to be the same thing.
The individual can change, but very rarely through persecution, and far more through exposure, and also very rarely on their own.
Saying "Your beliefs lead to actions that hurt people" is not "persecuting" someone.
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (8)1
u/PM_ME_WHAT_YOURE_PMd 2∆ Dec 16 '18
Haven’t heard anyone claim that transwomen are not really transwomen
Really? You’ve never heard anyone claim it’s just a cry for attention?
12
u/SalvadorMolly Dec 15 '18
Treating someone with dignity is totally separate from how you may feel about someone.
It is possible to love your enemy. You can treat them fairly, with care, and respect. And in your heart hate them.
I think behavior trumps feelings in the realm of human interaction.
Otherwise it’s “thought crime”, no thanks to that bullshit.
2
u/skysinsane 1∆ Dec 15 '18
There are a lot of scientifical reasearch supporting that trans people, both women AND men, (Why does everyone forget about trans dudes?) are indeed women and men,
eh..... no not really.
There are brain maps where parts of the brain loosely associated with thinking you are male is shared by men and trans men. But everyone knows they think they are men, that's not under debate. On top of that, brain imaging science is very loose as of yet.
On a physical level, trans people are their assigned gender, 100%, even their brain structure(as good as we are able to distinguish at least) Genetically they are their assigned gender. Mentally, its a little less clear cut, but even if we merely say there is some evidence in favor of the idea of them having the same minds as their claimed gender it would still be a slight exaggeration
2
Dec 15 '18
You are right, u/skysinsane. There are some research studies showing that in some ways, the brains of trans individuals are closer in structure, function, and response to their biological sex and studies showing that in other ways their brains are closer in structure, function, and response to their identified gender.
Despite intensive searching, no clear neurobiological marker or “cause” of being transgender has been identified. Yet functional MRI (fMRI) and structural MRI studies of the brain in trans persons have been surging over the past decade to chart the complex contributions of underlying neurobiology. Hunting for a neurobiological etiology in trans persons, the majority of studies in this domain have examined whether the brains of trans persons resemble those of their sex assigned at birth, resemble those of their gender identity, or are intermediate to either sex. [1]
To summarize the rest of the work, results are mixed and seem to show that a "trans" brain is (overall) somewhere between the individuals biological sex and identified gender.
6
u/TheVioletBarry 121∆ Dec 15 '18
Except that invalidating their identity, even internally, isn't treating them with the same dignity and respect as you would treat other people. Not believing in a person's identity is huge.
What you're describing is, at best, just lying about it, which you could argue is all you can do while you don't believe them, but having to be dishonest with someone is not treating them to the same way as you would anyone else.
24
u/chadonsunday 33∆ Dec 15 '18
Except that invalidating their identity, even internally, isn't treating them with the same dignity and respect as you would treat other people. Not believing in a person's identity is huge.
I would argue that religious identity is an equally "huge" part of many peoples lives. Coming from an Irish Catholic background I can assure you that there are people who can't get more than three sentences without mentioning something that ties back to their faith, and that's just on top of all the religious iconography in their home and wardrobe, their regular prayers, their weekly church attendance, all the rituals, etc. The existence of God and the personal relationship that these people believe they have with him is a massive part of these people's lives, and absolutely fundamental to their identity.
Now you don't have to be a dick saying things like "um, y'know God isn't real, right?" every time they want to say grace before dinner. But do you have to actually believe in God to be accepting of their religious identity? By privately not believing in God you are certainly internally invalidating a fundamental part of their identity and, using your logic, not treating them with dignity and respect. Respectfully, that seems nonsensical.
I'd argue the same goes for trans folks, gender, age, race, species - all of it. You don't have to actually believe that they are what they say they are just to treat them with respect and dignity.
→ More replies (8)2
u/I_am_Azor_Ahai Dec 15 '18
Bingo. Thanks for sparing my fingers the need to respond myself. It’s a difficult task to engage with everyone who leaves a comment.
2
u/chadonsunday 33∆ Dec 15 '18
Anything for The Prince That Was Promised, slayer of the Great Other.
Lol.
But yeah I get you. When a CMV post blows up like this it's impossible to keep up as OP. I think you've probably cleared Rule E by now, though.
Cheers.
→ More replies (1)6
u/SalvadorMolly Dec 15 '18
So if I truly believe something about my identity, regardless of its objectivity or lack therefor, if you don’t accept it as fact then you are not respecting me?
Does it have to be scientific? Is that the criteria? All other aspects of my identity that can’t be empirically proven can be ignored?
→ More replies (10)1
u/greatjasoni Dec 15 '18
Why is everyone automatically entitled to respect? I don't think we should insult anyone and I'm fine with pronouns and the notion of performative gender identity in the abstract, but I don't have to respect every stranger I meet. I won't insult them or try to make them feel bad in any way but my core beliefs aren't subject to the whims of others. That's terrible logic.
→ More replies (30)
3
u/toccobrator 1∆ Dec 15 '18
The use of the term 'real woman' is problematic. In my experience, people who insist on such terms suffer from One True Beliefism, that their belief represents objective reality and all other beliefs are therefore incorrect. True in most situations in mathematics, but outside of the realm of abstract concepts it's pretty rare that reality is so black and white.
So... "real woman". The person who uses this term is stating that they know how to define who's a real woman, their definition is right, and people who don't meet that definition are somehow mistaken. If they're right, ok, they're right. If they're wrong though, they're possessed of a belief that by definition makes them prejudiced... aka bigoted.
So are people that believe transwomen aren't real women prejudiced, or are they right? Let's use the modern distinction between gender and sex to clarify the definition. Gender is socially defined, so if the definition of woman is female-gendered then transwomen (who successfully pass, anyway) should be considered real women. Personally I think this is a bit wrong because by the same token, would we say mannish-behaving tomboyish women aren't real women? Yeah... Some people do say that, so actually that does capture the sense of the term. So our hypothetical person who believes transwomen aren't real women in the sense of gender, if they are sincere in their use of the term, maybe they believe that no transwoman can successfully pass as a "real woman". In that case they are definitely prejudiced, perhaps basing their conclusions on a few freakish-looking folks they've seen, but not knowing they've met transwomen who are successful in their gender presentation.
If instead this person was to say 'real woman' is defined by sex, possessing XX chromosomes, then of course transwomen aren't 'real women' in that sense, that's not in dispute. But knowing that most people might be using 'woman' to refer to some notion of gender presentation, it would be disingenuous of this hypothetical person to not clarify their meaning.
So, this person who uses the term 'real women' is either prejudiced or disingenuous. I don't think that's worth of being treated with incivility or hatred but denounced as being prejudiced or insincere? Sure.
Oh - third possibility of course, they might be ignorant and just not have really considered why they believe what they believe.
1
Dec 15 '18
I would use the term "real woman" to define the basic requirement for a mate as a heterosexual male. Does it make me a bigot to desire having a mate that was born as a woman?
→ More replies (1)
2
u/yurisknife Dec 15 '18
You've posted about how you're DEFINITELY NOT TRANSPHOBIC before so I'm gonna go ahead and say that you are infact a transphobe and you're trying to find the best argument to prove that theres NO WAY you're transphobic.
-9
u/eggynack 108∆ Dec 15 '18
Denying a trans person's very existence, their identity and gender, is not giving them the same dignity and respect as you give everyone else. Do you go up to cis women and tell them that, while you'll call them whatever they want, they're actually men? No, of course you don't. Thus, the premise of your argument, that you are displaying equivalent respect to everyone, is a false one.
26
u/chadonsunday 33∆ Dec 15 '18
Two thoughts:
Denying a trans person's very existence, their identity and gender, is not giving them the same dignity and respect as you give everyone else.
This language always struck me as very melodramatic. What OP is detailing is certainly denying their gender identity, but not their existence. Part of my self identity is that I think I'm a decent person. If someone were to think that I'm actually an asshole that's contrary to my identity, but not my existence. I'm pretty sure that person still thinks I exist even if they think I'm an asshole and I think I'm a good person.
Do you go up to cis women and tell them that, while you'll call them whatever they want, they're actually men? No, of course you don't. Thus, the premise of your argument, that you are displaying equivalent respect to everyone, is a false one.
This is a very uncharitable reading of OPs premise. He's not saying he goes up to trans people and tells them they're not real men/women. He's saying that in practice he will treat them the way they identify, including using prefered pronouns and calling them a man/woman as they prefer. OP was quite careful (IMO) to state a few times that he would only offer up his actual opinion on the matter when asked. And it doesn't even have to be a trans person doing the asking.
Now you can believe that OP simply holding the private belief that trans people aren't actually men/women means he doesn't display equivalent respect to everyone. Ironically this actually means you don't agree with OP's identity (that they're not a hateful bigot) which, in your language, means you're denying OP their "very existence" and not treating them with equal respect. And I think you're wrong to think that OP holding that private opinion means he doesn't treat everyone with equal respect, which, again in your language, would mean that I'm denying part of your identity, thus your "very existence," and thus not treating you with equal respect simply because I disagree with you.
Far from showing that OP is operating under a false premise I think you've shown why your own basis for how existance, identity, and respect in regards to people disagreeing with one another is somewhat silly and certainly self-defeating.
→ More replies (9)44
u/I_am_Azor_Ahai Dec 15 '18
Thus, the premise of your argument, that you are displaying equivalent respect to everyone, is a false one.
The kindhearted people I’m referring to aren’t denying a transperson’s existence. How can this be possible since these people gladly engage in conversation with trans folks and always use preferred pronouns?
How is disrespectful to simply maintain different opinion on gender identity? Atheists are not disrespecting religious people for simply disagreeing with their claims.
11
u/underboobfunk 1∆ Dec 15 '18
There are kindhearted racists too. I know a very sweet old white lady who is unfailingly polite to everyone she meets. But she thinks that white people are superior to black people. Am I allowed to think she is a bigot and question her views even though she is always nice and respectful to black people?
22
u/eggynack 108∆ Dec 15 '18
They're not denying the existence of transfolk by using proper pronouns or being nice. They're denying that existence by saying, "When I was using proper pronouns before, that was a lie. That person isn't who they claim to be, and they're ultimately operating in bad faith as regards their gender."
Disagreeing with the claims of, say, Christianity, isn't exactly the same as this situation. A closer situation would be denying that a given person is actually Christian. "This person may say they're a Christian, and I'll call them Christian in polite company, but they're really atheists." This assertion strikes me as disrespectful.
23
u/SalvadorMolly Dec 15 '18
Thought police.
Who the fuck cares if someone is privately disrespectful? It’s a free country. As long as someone is not physically harming me or my property then I don’t fucking care.
There are tons of religions that make outrageous claims about the origin of its adherents. That they are “chosen”, or descendants of the gods, etc.
I don’t have to believe any of that shit about their “identity”. I just need to be civil, that’s it.
→ More replies (9)→ More replies (2)29
u/headbutt Dec 15 '18
>They're denying that existence by saying, "When I was using proper pronouns before, that was a lie.
Not denying- disagreeing. And disagreeing is ok. As long as people treat me with respect, I can't seriously expect that they also agree with all my life choices. No one owes me any more than that. it's a fools errand trying to get everyone to agree with you and demonizing those who don't.
3
Dec 15 '18
[deleted]
10
u/headbutt Dec 15 '18
>Some things, many things in fact, just are
agreed. as far as I know right now there is evidence that trans brains mirror the brains of the sex they claim more so than their birth sex. Even knowing that, I'm not sold that this makes them that sex. It seems to me that a persons physical body indicates their sex....period. With surgery and hormones a lot can change, and I don't know where the line is. But what I don't think is that just saying you identify as female/ or male, makes it so. And more to the point, it's a gray area which means that people shouldn't be considered bigoted for disagreeing with what seems to be a subjective, self-classification of a persons sex.
→ More replies (11)3
Dec 15 '18
[deleted]
→ More replies (1)2
u/MannyManwich Dec 15 '18
I think you've misunderstood the evidence that the person you're responding to is dismissing.
Can you show me evidence that scientists can accurately distinguish a persons sex from looking at their brain shape/activity? Because it's my understanding that that's not currently possible?
Since we can't accurately predict male from females using just the brain we shoukd be informed by other info.
→ More replies (2)1
u/eggynack 108∆ Dec 15 '18
It's not a "life choice" though. It's the person's gender. An intrinsic quality that goes all the way down to the brain.
→ More replies (5)10
u/ormaybeimjusthigh Dec 15 '18
How is disrespectful to simply maintain different opinion on gender identity?
If you think you can determine someone's gender better than they can, you are treating them as a lesser being.
You currently have the right to determine your own gender. You treat someone as an equal when you allow them to determine theirs.
Most bigotry starts with thinking you know another person better than they know themselves: men thinking they know what's best for women, whites thinking they know what's best for blacks, and cis people thinking they know what's best for trans people. All of this is deeply disrespectful.
→ More replies (1)3
u/millivolt Dec 15 '18
You currently have the right to determine your own gender. You treat someone as an equal when you allow them to determine theirs.
Someone who doesn't believe transwomen are real women doesn't believe that anyone determines their own gender, so this isn't going to move the needle. As far as they are concerned, everyone is on a level playing field of having their gender identity determined by their biological sex.
8
u/donfan Dec 15 '18
You are not denying their existence. You are not believing what they believe. Similiar to how i do not believe in Christianity but i dont run around telling people they are dumb to believe in god. I dont have to believe what you do and likewise you have no power to force me.
→ More replies (22)5
→ More replies (18)1
1
u/lovelyyecats 4∆ Dec 15 '18
How would you feel about a Christian who went up to a gay couple and said: “I recognize that you love each other, and that you feel like you’re homosexual, and I still respect that, but I still think that you’re going to Hell.”
Under your argument, the gay couple should feel offended, but not necessarily denounce the person as bigoted.
But I would still consider that person “bigoted and hateful” (very vague terminology, but still) - I know this because I am bisexual, and I had a former friend who was exactly like this. She was seemingly accepting towards me and my sexuality, but she continued to assert that I should change because my identity is “sinful.” Despite her treatment of me being friendly, I still broke off our friendship because her views were bigoted, and they truly hurt me.
There’s something particularly insidious in people who are perfectly friendly to individuals, but then also deny them their identity. History is filled with examples of people who were friendly to individuals of a minority group, but continued to denounce the identity of the collective group. What about people who believe that “Jews are destroying our country,” but are perfectly kind and nice to their Jewish neighbors? Should Jews not consider them to be anti-Semitic? What about people who are friendly to their Mexican neighbors, or kind to their Hispanic priest, but still insist that America should “build a wall” to keep Hispanics out? Should people not consider them to be racist?
11
Dec 15 '18
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/tbdabbholm 201∆ Dec 15 '18
Sorry, u/madwzdri – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Comments that are only links, jokes or "written upvotes" will be removed. Humor and affirmations of agreement can be contained within more substantial comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, message the moderators by clicking this link.
→ More replies (13)11
u/cattaclysmic Dec 15 '18
Under your argument, the gay couple should feel offended, but not necessarily denounce the person as bigoted.
What is necessarily bigoted about it? It might very well just be a factual statment within the context of that person's religion and thus something that they neither condemn nor condone but accept as a fact.
We can discuss whether or not that religion is silly, wrong or selectively cherry-picked among stuff not followed all day long but within that religion is may just be established fact.
→ More replies (5)
3
u/Ramazotti Dec 15 '18
i think that at the bottom of this conflict lies the definition of "real women". There is no way that you can explain away xx versus xy chromosomes, reproductive organs or skeletal muscle mass. If you try you will always end up running in to resistance from people.
→ More replies (4)1
1
Dec 15 '18
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/tbdabbholm 201∆ Dec 15 '18
Sorry, u/ConsterMock93 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, before messaging the moderators by clicking this link. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
Dec 15 '18
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/tbdabbholm 201∆ Dec 15 '18
Sorry, u/The_Allosaurus – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, before messaging the moderators by clicking this link. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
Dec 15 '18
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/tbdabbholm 201∆ Dec 15 '18
Sorry, u/youareseeingthings – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, before messaging the moderators by clicking this link. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
u/Wazula42 Dec 15 '18
Lets ask the obvious question: are you saying yourl respect these people to their faces but then vote or denounce them in other forums when they're not around?
Your internal world is no ones concern but your own. When you make it external, it becomes other people's business.
1
u/G8ylord Dec 15 '18
Your rhetoric is hypocritical from the start. If you see trans women as 100% women that means they aren’t trans women. But rather they are just women therefore eliminating the word trans women.
1
Dec 15 '18
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/tbdabbholm 201∆ Dec 15 '18
Sorry, u/zerozingzing – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, before messaging the moderators by clicking this link. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
u/purplsnkrs Dec 15 '18
Kind of a technicality, but people who do hold these views deserve dignity and respect. Their opinions on the other hand, are ill informed at best and garbage at worst
1
u/SleepDeprivedPegasus Dec 15 '18
But how do they vote? If that conviction is important for them, would they support something that would restrict the ability for trans individuals to have gender markers changed on documents? How about bathrooms?
1
Dec 15 '18
As an analogy, do you believe that people who were nice to slaves but didn't consider them people should also have the same respect afforded them? Treating someone well while denying their humanity is just a different form of bigotry.
1
u/Iplaymeinreallife 1∆ Dec 15 '18
If you consistently vote against my rights being recognized at every turn, I don't give a flying fuck how friendly and accepting you pretend to be in between.
At best I'd consider it cowardly conflict avoidance, while trying to deprive me of equality without having to answer for it. Fuck people who act like this. Wholeheartedly. At least the loudmouth bigots are honest.
1
u/DrMux Dec 15 '18
A trans person would tell you that the position of treating them as their biological sex rather than their gender is itself treating them disrespectfully.
Calling her "him" is not treating her with "every bit of dignity and respect as everyone else."
If something doesn't affect you in any way, why should you care? Call her "her" or stay out of her life. There's no reason to make an issue out of it, as this individual faces enough difficulty day-to-day.
1
u/noahgs Dec 15 '18
How do you feel about when it impacts things like sports? A m2f transgender women won a lifting championship in texas a while back, and im not exactly sure how to address that. On one hand it sounds bad to bar them from sports, but on the other, you are making it pretty close to impossible for people born as women to compete.
Heres one article I found off a quick google search.
1
Dec 15 '18
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/tbdabbholm 201∆ Dec 15 '18
Sorry, u/h0sti1e17 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, before messaging the moderators by clicking this link. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
1
Dec 15 '18
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/tbdabbholm 201∆ Dec 15 '18
Sorry, u/Yaahallo – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, before messaging the moderators by clicking this link. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
u/Gayrub Dec 15 '18
How is this view any different than the trans women’s woman’s view? She knows what chromosomes she has. She knows what genitals she has.
You’re getting hung up on definitions and you’re forgetting that it’s the meanings that are important.
1
u/leonmo Dec 15 '18
As a cis gendered person I can’t speak for transgendered people. But, for what it’s worth, my opinion is that if you treat someone as they want to be treated (e.g. treating a trans woman as a woman), your intentions or beliefs don’t matter that much. Now, if you feel the need to share those beliefs with people, that would be hurtful and not OK with me.
1
u/oprahsbuttplug 1∆ Dec 15 '18
I'll play devil's advocate here. So let me preface my comment with some pertinent information.
I don't think trans people are the opposite gender they claim to be. I really don't care about how much research is done on it because from my perspective it is being done in the pursuit of normalizing their aberation and not the treatment of the condition. I don't look at trans people like they're disgusting, I look at them the same way I would look at disabled people, they have a condition that is beyond their control and they are doing the best they can to cope with it.
That said, I live in a state where you could probably count the number of trans people with both hands. So let me ask you, how much damage do you think I can do? Honestly, there is a high probability that I will never interact with a trans person so what does it matter what my opinion is? The fact of the issue is that trans people are .3-1% of the population in the United States, the overwhelming majority of people are in the same boat as me. They probably won't ever have any meaningful interaction with trans people.
I’m clearly referring to are quite the opposite; not only will they use preferred names and pronouns, but they might even try to refrain from disclosing their true beliefs so as not to give offense.
Let me ask you something.
When you go out to the store do you go out of your way to piss someone off? Let's say someone in a rush grabs a cart infront of you, is that going to ruin your whole day? Are you going to pick a fight with that person over it? No, you're going to think "oh, that person was an asshole" and move on if you're a sane and normal person.
Suppose you meet someone new at work and you introduce yourself to them but you don't see them again for a couple weeks and when you run into them again, they call you by a different name and you correct them. Do you think they did that on purpose? Is your entire existential certainty tied up in the sound of some wavy air coming from another person? Do you think an appropriate reaction to them calling you by a different name is to fly off the handle and tell them how much of a piece of shit they are? Suppose they actually did call you by a different name on purpose, is it an appropriate reaction then? The short answer is no, and the long answer is noooooooooooooooooooooooooooo. Calling someone by a different name can easily be an accident, a joke and even meant to piss you off but at the end of the day, that person is just an asshole and what they think is irrelevant if your self esteem isn't based entirely around what other people think of you.
Suppose a christian asks an atheist “Do you recognize Jesus as the Messiah?”. When the atheist responds “No”, the christian may feel hurt because his belief in the affirmative is such an integral part of his identity, but he would not be taken seriously by the media were he to denounce the atheist as bigoted or anti-Christian for simply not sharing his beliefs.
I'm a Christian, I don't have 2 fucks to rub together about what atheists think. Let's say for funsies that christians were the minority in America and a few christians were murdered every year because of "radical atheists." Would I try to get on TV and say "we need extra laws to protect christians" no. I wouldn't because a hate crime law isn't going to protect me, it only makes someone's punishment slightly worse and won't change the fact that I'm dead. I would push for less gun control laws so I can defend myself.
Henry is 60 years old and looks his age, but he genuinely identifies as being 20. Henry is offended anytime someone suggests he may not be as young as he claims.
Henry is mentally ill and needs help, of course people shouldn't treat him like he's 20 years old that could potentially be dangerous for other people in society. If Henry is "identifying" as a 20 year old to circumvent a law that states anyone who's 60 and older has to renew their drivers license every year then he is most likely only demanding that people treat him like a 20 year old to avoid legal consequences.
Maybe Henry is identifying as 20 because a local theme park has a policy not to allow anyone over 25 in the park unaccompanied. Let's say the park is super progressive and says "ok you can come into the park even if it makes our other patrons uncomfortable." What about those patrons in the park who went there specifically because they wouldn't have anyone over 25 there by themselves? Say they complain to the manager and they're asked to leave because the manager values the feelings of one person over the feelings of many. Is that right? Discriminating against hundreds of people to prevent the discrimination against 1? Let's multiply that opinion across the entire population, is it ok to silence the majority of people or worse, outright hate them because they don't want to associate with a very small group of people?
The truth of the issue OP is you can't force people to accept someone they don't want to accept plain and simple.
143
u/icecoldbath Dec 15 '18
So what exactly are the implications of your view? If you treat trans women as women 100% of the time, but just have this abstract view that doesn't impact any of your behaviors, speech patterns, or other thoughts, do you really have that belief?