Chelsea Manning for Senate?

[jamil]

Not necessarily. It could be a "normal" deviation from the average person. You may be right. It is possibly a "disorder." But gender is different from eye colour in that it is caused by many more complex variables than this.

Consider that it used to also be "normal" to look down upon anyone like me, because I am left handed. Many teachers, nuns, and others in society considered lefties to be an aberrant and unacceptable state of being. They were forced to write with their right hand. 80% of the world is right handed, 20% is left. I would be extremely uncomfortable if you were to try to force me to be anything other than left handed. The difference is that today my left handedness is accepted by society, so I am not forced to feel any dysphoria due to my "condition." 100 years ago? I may have well felt dysphoric due to my preferred hand not be tolerated by societal constraints. So was society wrong, or am I suffering from a "disorder?"

From my perspective today society pulled its head from its rectum and learned that those like me are no better nor worse than righties. Are we seeing the same thing with gender? I don't know. I still think it is possible.

Then there are ambidextrous people. We won't even talk about them. They are a real group of deviants.

Regards,

Doug

In discussing whether or not it's a disorder, we're not talking about how others view transgendered people. We're talking about how transgendered people view themselves, and how they cope with it. The reason left-handedness is a poor analog for your point, if a person became debilitatively dissatisfied with being left-handed, that would be a disorder. Transsexualism isn't a disorder without the dysphoria. If they can cope with their physical sex, like left-handed people can cope with their handedness, it's not a disorder. It's a state of being. And it's not a particularly "normal" state of being unless nature is playing a very cruel joke on these people.

So I disagree that being transsexual is normal in the way you'd call being left-handed normal. It's perhaps normal in the sense that it is a condition that's possible to happen to humans. Another example of that kind of "normal" would be it's normal that people can be predisposed to cancer. An inverse example would be it's not normal for men to bear children. So if you're narrowing the scope of "normal" to that which can possibly happen to humans, I'd agree with that. But in the context of how you presented it, I'd say no. It's not normal.

I sense that your purpose to call it "normal" is to try and remove the social stigma of being in the condition they're in. And that's a good goal. The ones who can't help it, can't help it. But I think the focus should not be on deciding whether it is or isn't a disorder, or even is or isn't it "normal", especially to remove the stigma that comes with being different from everyone else.

The focus should be on erasing the stigma associated with not being normal through no fault of your own. It's not your fault you're left handed, even though the only real stigma about that is that since the rest of society is right-handed, it designed society around that. It would not be your fault if you were transsexual, at least really transsexual, not the fake gender-fluid nonsense which is mostly ideological. Point is, treat other people like you want to be treated (with the caveat that the way people treat you may permit you to treat them the same).

 

[BugI02]

How did this evolve from the specific (traitor Lorena Bobbit admirer runs for Senate) to the general (can someone with an Y chromosome ever truly be a woman)?

View attachment 63645

 

[Dead Duck]

I'm confused.
What eye color do trannys have again?

 

[Sylvain]

Felon = can't vote

If they can't vote, how can a felon run?

Convicted felons can run for office, even if they are still in prison at the time of the election.
In some sates they can't run for state-level office but there's no federal law against it.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

How did this evolve from the specific (traitor Lorena Bobbit admirer runs for Senate) to the general (can someone with an Y chromosome ever truly be a woman)?

Because we like to argue?

 

[Dead Duck]

Because we like to argue?

Do NOT!

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Do NOT!

Uh-Huh!

 

[Dead Duck]

I'm gonna tell.....

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Tattle-Tale!

 

[BugI02]

Because we like to argue?

I assert that the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin is ultimately limited by the Planck Length

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I assert that the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin is ultimately limited by the Planck Length

 

[rhino]

Do NOT!

Simple contradiction does not constitute a proper argument, my good man.

 

[jamil]

Simple contradiction does not constitute a proper argument, my good man.

Yes it does.

 

[rhino]

Yes it does.

How DARE you!

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

How DARE you!

Support your argument.

 

[rhino]

Support your argument.

Hush, you!

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Hush, you!

That's a feeble attempt.

 

[Libertarian01]

In discussing whether or not it's a disorder, we're not talking about how others view transgendered people. We're talking about how transgendered people view themselves, and how they cope with it. The reason left-handedness is a poor analog for your point, if a person became debilitatively dissatisfied with being left-handed, that would be a disorder. Transsexualism isn't a disorder without the dysphoria. If they can cope with their physical sex, like left-handed people can cope with their handedness, it's not a disorder. It's a state of being. And it's not a particularly "normal" state of being unless nature is playing a very cruel joke on these people.

So I disagree that being transsexual is normal in the way you'd call being left-handed normal. It's perhaps normal in the sense that it is a condition that's possible to happen to humans. Another example of that kind of "normal" would be it's normal that people can be predisposed to cancer. An inverse example would be it's not normal for men to bear children. So if you're narrowing the scope of "normal" to that which can possibly happen to humans, I'd agree with that. But in the context of how you presented it, I'd say no. It's not normal.

I sense that your purpose to call it "normal" is to try and remove the social stigma of being in the condition they're in. And that's a good goal. The ones who can't help it, can't help it. But I think the focus should not be on deciding whether it is or isn't a disorder, or even is or isn't it "normal", especially to remove the stigma that comes with being different from everyone else.

The focus should be on erasing the stigma associated with not being normal through no fault of your own. It's not your fault you're left handed, even though the only real stigma about that is that since the rest of society is right-handed, it designed society around that. It would not be your fault if you were transsexual, at least really transsexual, not the fake gender-fluid nonsense which is mostly ideological. Point is, treat other people like you want to be treated (with the caveat that the way people treat you may permit you to treat them the same).

By taking too long to respond again I feel like I'm getting in the middle of a "did not" / "did too" argument.

I think my left-handed issue is more on point historically than you may be giving it the weight it may deserve. The origin of this issue in western culture wades WAY back to the Christian church, and a little Latin lesson cometh here. The Latin word for "right" is dexter. The Latin word for left is sinister. This is the irony of the TV series named Dexter, he was operating as the right hand of God.

Anywho's, if you travel through Europe you will notice that above many of the ancient churches there will be a picture of Christ, either standing or sitting on a throne/chair. Everyone who was to Christ's "right" side (his right hand) was saved, and thus everyone to Christs left side (his left hand) was damned. Thus, the lefties were "sinister." Over time left-handedness became synonymous with sinister, wrong, or damned. Unnatural even. Imagine someone hundreds of years ago born in a Christian country being left-handed. It may have been a living nightmare (may I use the word dysphoria?) for them worrying daily about going to hell simply because their natural desire to use their left hand was putting their very soul at risk.

Before anyone poo-poo's this, Martin Luther worried much more than most people would imagine about going to hell. Not about being left-handed, but on a more philosophical bent. But imagine a peasant who came to church week after week, year after year, and saw all the damned at the left hand of Christ going to hell who was left-handed himself or herself. Would that not cause a psychological discomfort? Would that not make them extremely uneasy with their own body? We don't worry about our immortal souls today like those hundreds of years ago did, but worry they did. Their lives revolved around their work, their little village, and the only hope they had - their church.

Sex is biological. Gender and gender roles are entirely a social construct. Why don't men wear dresses? Why don't women wear suits & ties? In the European renaissance men wore a significant amount of makeup. How much do men wear today? These are all issues that are created by culture and society, not by biology.

Our society has grown to tolerate much more diversity than we did before. In some areas too much. I won't argue that.

And you may well be right. Someone who is extremely uncomfortable with their own body may well be suffering from a medical disorder. I think this may well be correct, but I am not convinced it is entirely so. I am thinking the answer may well be somewhere in the middle, where you are right about some people and I am dexter about others. But I don't think either one of us is 100% correct, or 100% wrong. Perhaps in our lifetimes further study will prove me sinister, or right.

We are being pretty good with the words normal and natural. Diseases are natural and normal, but not desirable. Being sociopathic is natural for some, but not normal nor desirable. On the obverse, abnormal doesn't necessarily mean unnatural or undesirable, such as silver eyes. As most people are right-handed it is logical and reasonable to design most things to accommodate this group of people.

I think some on the left go too far on pushing the descriptive words regarding people. I believe he and she, him and her, etc, should refer to at least appearing sexually male or female. Those words should be tied to sex as most people with then have a clear understanding during speech about what the discussion entails. If a transgendered person who was born male but transitions all appearances to female, like Caitlyn Jenner then I have no problem referring to that person as "her", "she" or any other feminine descriptor. However, should Hulk Hogan all of a sudden want to be referred to in the feminine without taking the steps to change his appearance, then NO, I do not agree with that. These words ARE descriptors and do have specific connotations. I wouldn't describe a 5'0" woman as tall, nor would I describe a 6'9" man as short. I don't care what they want in this case, the words tall and short are subjective, but within our society and others these words have meaning. Perhaps in 400 years if the average male height is 8'5" THEN a 6'9" man will be short, but today he is tall.

Regards,

Doug

PS - Back to your regularly scheduled hushing.

 

[jamil]

Doug,

I understand the historical context of left-handedness. I find it not applicable because the discomfort that I'm talking about is ultimately not a social construct. I agree that a lot of the stigma for transgendered people is a social construct, which both sides of the issue contribute to. But the part that isn't a social construct, and I'll get just a little graphic for emphasis, imagine being a guy, and being uncomfortable with having a dick. As far as I can tell from the literature on it that I've read, it's not for social reasons. Women's brains are different from men's brains, and I can't say I understand the scientific language about what makes them different. But I can understand enough from those studies to know what matters. There's a physical component to it.

Transgenders' brains have many of the characteristics of the other. So for a male who feels like he's a woman, there's likely a physical reason for that. And it's likely because his brain is more similar to whatever is different about a woman's brain from a man's. So this dysphoria is not a social construct. It's that, for whatever reason, a small percentage of people have developed the brain similar to the sex opposite of what they are physically. So maybe it's more like this. What if you're a woman, and as you developed, you grew a penis, and you're really uncomfortable having it now. You're supposed to have a vagina. That you're supposed to have a vagina isn't a social construct if it's wired into your brain. Of course not exactly like that growing one after birth, because these people are born with the parts they have. But in terms of how they would feel dysphoric about it, it's more like that than it is feeling dysphoric because of other people's expectations.

So the condition is not normal, but also it does not make them bad. And of course, there is a lot of social constructions that compound the physical condition. And you add in all the social stigma of being different, and social constructs of how you're supposed to be given the parts you have, and it's no wonder the suicide rate is 40%.

And one point that I want to make that I didn't before, and that is that we're talking about a very narrow subject. We're talking about bonafide transsexual people. We're not talking about "gender fluidity". We're not talking about zir/zhe, and 70 something other pronouns purely concocted by social justice. Those are socially constructed. By ideologues. And it's utter nonsense. And that's where I would draw the line in calling people by their preferred pronouns. A real transsexual who really has this condition, yes. I would call them the one of exactly two gendered pronouns that they preferred.

And that brings me to the question T.Lex asked. I've mentioned before that I have a cousin who is a transsexual. And honestly I don't know him/her very well at all. I didn't refer to his or her sex/gender here because I honestly don't know. We've talked at funerals, basically. That's the only time extended family seems to gather. I last talked to this person at my Dad's funeral years ago. All I know is that my dad told me long ago that my cousin got a sex change operation. He never told me my cousin's biological sex. And, I can't ask. I mean, it's just not something you talk about at funerals. And I can't go by my cousin's first name because it's one of those names that could go either way--no, it's not Pat.

I say this now because researching this to see if what you were saying is true, has changed my opinion on it. After researching it, I'd say I don't believe you're right, that it's mostly a social construct. If all social constructs were dissolved, the real transgendered people would still be dysphoric about their physical sex versus the sex they feel like they are. But I don't believe I was right either. And I'm starting to rethink my position on treatment. Surgery doesn't solve the problem--nothing really does--it sort of masks it and brings about a tolerable existence for some. It's still a very high suicide rate after surgery and it's not clear that that's all about the social stigma. But the clinical literature makes it seem fairly clear that it does help some of them cope.

So, now, if I did know my cousin's actual sex, and he or she wanted to be called by the other pronoun, knowing what I know now, I'd use it. It's not my cousin's fault that nature played a cruel joke. It doesn't do him or her any good to sit here and demand precision in the words I use. So I'm going to disagree with people like Ben Shapiro on this.

But something I will agree with him about, if you're a dude, but say you're a transgender woman, and you look like a dude, act like a dude in every way, in every mannerism you behave just like a dude, beard, gruffness, etcetera, but you just dress like and call yourself a woman, I'm probably going to suspect that you're not actually a transgender person. Maybe you have something else going on. And much of that may be due to social constructs, but the social constructs which has men generally behaving masculine, and women generally behaving famine, have evolved and are wired into us. So much that it's part of biology too. It works across time and across cultures. And that's not likely to change no matter how much social justice wants it to.

 

[Dead Duck]

I'm confused.
What eye color do left-handed trannys have again?