|
Having looked up the suicide rates among trans people on a lark (It's one of the highest by percentage in the nation. Especially if you start narrowing it down to considerations like if they were denied/unable to get treatment when they were young. Then it's something like nearly 50% attempted suicide last I checked.) it's pretty obvious that being trans isn't a "fad" or a way of being a "deviant" as so many people seem to claim and try to use as a dog whistle. Given that and that gender pronoun entitlement is societally a big element of defining gender to most people i'd say they're entitled to be called the gender they want to be. gently caress the people that make light of that poo poo or try to inject their personal, religious, or political beliefs into the situation. That means Crowsbeak in particular, by the way. Crowsbeak posted:Only if the society as a whole allows it. If it doesn't well tough poo poo. Mob rule is apparently the best rule. I mean, what's a few lynchings and destroyed lives compared to what the majority of people want? Archonex fucked around with this message at 05:16 on Mar 23, 2016 |
#
¿
Mar 23, 2016 05:11
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 11:41 |
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Remember everyone lynchings are exactly like not everyone using the exact pronouns. No, some of the poo poo you've been saying and implying is the same sort of poo poo that people have used to excuse ignoring and not dealing with actual civil rights issues in the past. It's literally one early move out of a long playbook to avoid first examining an issue with honesty, then once it's been examined to avoid actually dealing with it. I just called out one of the most egregiously stupid and fallacious things you said. Because honestly, on the off chance you're not trolling then you're a human shaped shitbag that doesn't understand that the US and many other countries don't work off of mob rule. We have provisions in place like the Supreme Court to keep the issue of society at large from oppressing other minorities easily. Because unfortunately society tends to be full of assholes that need to be managed for the good, safety, or comfort of everyone else. Since it came up, while i'm on the topic of the bullshit claims and fallacious arguments people use to deny other people their rights: waitwhatno posted:OK, here is my horrible take on the subject. Ready? It's a catch 22 to say that someone who is trans/genderfluid/whatever has to be registered as their legal sex before they can go into the bathroom of their identified gender simply because many people don't see why they should get the right to change their gender to begin with. More to the point, those people are advantaged enough compared to someone who is trans that they can push their agenda on others while also attaching malicious consequences to trying to fight back against what they want. Couple this with the fact that the act of being trans itself is still stigmatized to the point of being potentially literally life ruining and you're opening up a can of worms by having to force them to fight (And deal with the scorn and potential financially ruinous consequences therein.) to get a legal definition changed just so they can take a crap in public. And that's setting aside the fact that it's a ridiculous argument to say they have to meet some arbitrary standard like that to begin with. Nothing is stopping an actual pervert from going into a bathroom and molesting someone right now. And no one's going to be able to use the argument that they're trans in court as a defense since, hey, it has a lot of traits and requirements attached to it that make it obvious whether or not someone is trans when they're put under that level of scrutiny. The idea that trans people have to fight for basic poo poo like being called what they want and being allowed to safely go to the bathroom in public is vaguely absurd to begin with. It shouldn't even be a question. The bathroom issue in particular is just a vague attempt that has it's roots in pandering to morality and an appeal to safety. One that's no different than saying "Oh! Won't someone think of the children?" at it's heart. And it's one that goes back for more than half a century. People who were gay had the same sops to safety and morality used against them at one point. Hell, african american's pushing for equal rights and desegregation had the same poo poo used against them during the civil rights movement ("It's the whim of what we say is the majority of society, so we just shouldn't consider it!" "Why don't they just leave the country if they feel so oppressed then?" "Would you want one of those people in the same bathroom with your wife/child/you?") by out and out 100% racists. It's the same goddamn smear tactics, just repurposed to target a new minority. Which is generally a good way to tell when someone is bigoted as hell in one direction or another. Archonex fucked around with this message at 07:56 on Mar 23, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2016 06:05
|
|
|
XMNN posted:ban all bathrooms and we can just piss outside in nature like god intended No gods, no masters, no bathrooms. All shall find equality in a lack of public health and hygiene. 
Archonex fucked around with this message at 08:10 on Mar 23, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2016 08:01
|
|
|
Rakosi posted:Isn't there also a huge % of people who commit suicide/continue to have the same depression issues post-treatment because they changed their mind or the sex change didn't actually make them feel any better? Going to be a lot of  here again:There can be issues with the effectiveness of current treatment (Namely that depending on your current body that if you start transitioning after puberty you could very well be hosed when it comes to passing since it can't modify skeletal structure. A 6'2 guy with the skeletal structure of a linebacker is going to have a hard time passing as a woman assuming that's their personal priority for doing it. Which puts you under a lot of scrutiny out in public, among other issues.) that can contribute to continuing depression, yeah. There's also the issue that it can be extremely expensive all while society keeps just dumping truck loads of poo poo on you at every level. But i'd say that for people who that has to do more with the fact that they weren't allowed to do it when it would give them the results they wanted. Which is why the motto for transitioning seems to be to temper your hopes when it comes to the outcome. Since for most people it's technically too late to get the best outcome and there seems to be a lot of hopes and dreams going into the process. Granted all of that is subjective experience from talking to people I know. Complicating things is that research on the issue only really became fairly ethical and accurate in recent years too (Look up some of the pseudo-science arguments used against people who are transgender. They're hilariously disingenuous and circuitous. There's even been attempts to bullshit the number of people who regretted it to be much higher. Usually for religious or political purposes.) so it's hard to pin down the exact amount of people that end up regretting the process of transitioning . Before then there were a lot of issues with gatekeeping and even getting people willing to talk about it due to the certainty that if someone figured out your identity your life could very well end up hosed beyond all hope of repair. The 41% attempted suicide rate for trans people is really loving terrible though and is a pretty good case that all the arguments against transgender people being "legitimate" in their beliefs are bullshit. It's being shown to be corroborated in similar reports as well. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/08/16/transgender-individuals-face-high-rates--suicide-attempts/31626633/ posted:Suicide attempts are alarmingly common among transgender individuals such as Lampe; 41% try to kill themselves at some point in their lives, compared with 4.6% of the general public. The numbers come from a study by the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention and the Williams Institute, which analyzed results from the National Transgender Discrimination Survey. Researchers are preparing to launch another version of the online survey on Wednesday. Archonex fucked around with this message at 09:09 on Mar 23, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2016 08:58
|
|
|
Rakosi posted:I'm kind of uncomfortable with offering young people a say in what body parts they want, due to issues of the required mental maturity for such decisions. For me, the waiting till the person is older and wiser is unfortunate but necessary to minimize mistakes. There also are more people than is widely reported who go on to regret the change, some of whom change back again. Assuming i'm reading that right part of their methodology of looking at the issue is kind of hosed up, to say the least. They're comparing the mental and overall health of people who had the surgical treatment to people who aren't transgendered at all. That's kind of like comparing the health of a person who had a heart transplant to someone who's never had health related issues with their heart at all. Typically for studies like that you want to evaluate the rate of success (or lack, if that's the issue) of a particular group of people within that group of people that are affected. IE: Did having a sex change/whatever increase the quality of life compared to the people who never, don't, or can't have the operation? Assessing quality of life compared to before the operation is more important than trying to assess the health of the afflicted group against the general population. That's like saying that heart transplants are bad since someone might have future health issues due to having a replacement heart transplanted into them. They also don't seem to be accounting for issues like stigmatization of the condition itself, instead assuming that gender reassignment surgery is the predicating factor that ends up being the end all be all determiner of whether a person will be happy or not. Nor did they track whether or not they had had personal experience with that issue prior to the study taking place. If people keep crapping all over you even after you have gone through with all the currently possible medical "requirements" of transitioning then it ought to be no surprise that issues like suicidal ideation or regret might crop up. Edit: Haha, yeah. Okay, they are comparing it to the general population. I checked the chart at the bottom that was listed. That's messed up. What sort of result did they expect to get? They predisposed themselves to getting those results by opting out of tracking certain statistics they could have tried to check for. That's kind of what I meant by the lovely science being conducted on the condition. Even if it is well intentioned. Edit: The heart transplant comparison is probably bad. But that's just because I can't think of a good comparison off hand. Not sure what else would properly substitute there. The underlying argument kind of still makes sense, I hope. Trying to compare it to the general population is just dumb though since you're predisposing yourself to finding a negative outcome. The hormone and surgical treatments for dealing with gender dysphoria that we currently have available aren't universally perfect in the results they deliver as well, obviously. You're not just going to go under the knife and start taking hormones and magically be guaranteed to come out looking the way you want. And societal factors really do count and weren't tracked at all from what I can tell from what i've read. Though the article was cautious enough to point out that there's no real causation between SRS and what they found. All that being said i'm glad I know about it. I'll have to keep an eye out for people posting excerpts from it. I can't see that study as being used as anything but right wing click bait and anti-transgender propaganda as it was conducted. Like, holy poo poo. That's a gold mine for anyone with a flair for deception and cherry picking statements and studies. Archonex fucked around with this message at 09:44 on Mar 23, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2016 09:20
|
|
|
Rakosi posted:Also, there's another article about this: http://www.theguardian.com/society/2004/jul/30/health.mentalhealth Since we're sharing articles i'll just post this one I googled instead of spamming up the page with some of the faults it has. It goes into the issues with both the Arif study (Which was actually an attempt to parse the existing studies into understanding what the consensus was in parts of the medical community.) and the Guardian article itself being somewhat deceptive without having to type up an essay. http://www.cakeworld.info/news/2014-08-02acommentaryonthe2004arifstudyandtheguardianarticlesexchangesarenoteffectivesayresearchers Also now I want to find this study that was mentioned in that article: quote:The outcomes have been hugely positive. One criticism ARIF made (the drop-out rate) has been addressed in newer studies, as transsexuals receive better comprehensive treatment and are less discriminated against by health care providers. As an example, Dhejne, Öberg, Arver and Landén (2014) studied all applications for sex reassignment surgery in Sweden from 1960 to 2010 and found an average regret rate of 2.2 % – with the regret rate declining significantly over time. Two of those names listed appear to be the same names listed in the study that got posted above. The original study was posted in 2011, so apparently they got different results when they concluded a similar study later? Archonex fucked around with this message at 10:06 on Mar 23, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2016 09:56
|
|
|
straight up brolic posted:what is the point of this thread? what are people trying to argue? I read a bunch of pages and learned like nothing. I'm going to second the post that said that this whole thread and line of questioning is really stupid. And add that the thread's liable to just act as flame bait to out people with lovely beliefs at this point. I mean look how many posts on the last few pages alone are dedicated to justifying some lovely opinions. It was at least interesting as a thought experiment earlier on before people started making GBS threads it up with explanations on why they get to be dicks to other people who are part of a minority. Not so much now. If you meet someone in real life that is trans or not part of a traditional gender binary they're not going to say "REFER TO ME AS XER, SIR, YOU ARE INFRINGING ON MY RIGHTS" when you misgender them. No, they're going to either look uncomfortable (if they know you're being a willfully ignorant dick, as Commie Flanders was (Black face? Really?) going off of his posts) or just politely correct you with a simple male or female term they'd like to be referred by. You'd have to be mentally ill to think that having to learn a dozen new terms of address is anywhere close to reality. This hand wringing over bullshit like that is really the most obnoxiously disingenuous stuff. poo poo, the circuitous concern trolling from some of the people in this thread to justify not agreeing with the idea that someone has a right to be called or identified what they want to be is ridiculous all by itself. Archonex fucked around with this message at 18:36 on Mar 26, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2016 18:14
|
|
|
Troposphere posted:what does this even mean? do you realize a lot of women wear sweats and no makeup around the house when "no one is looking" and generally don't present themselves in a manner society sees feminine (hence why many of them put on makeup and dress up when leaving the house)? what are you talking about Dude. This is the same thread (And I think the same poster. Though maybe that was Flanders.) where people have said that they don't think a woman that looks sufficiently feminine in their eyes deserves to be called a woman. This is on top of referring to a definitive female experience that all women fit into within society at one point. You're fighting an uphill battle here. In order to convince people like that of anything you have to unfuck their screwed up perception of what each gender is first. And that's even if they're willing to listen. Edit: Ahaha, it was Rudatron alright: quote:First, I repeat: there is no such thing as an authentic identity. You are under the mistaken belief that performance is a precondition for identity acceptance - your identity (what you feel) isn't accepted until it matches your performance (expression of that identity). That's not what I'm saying, I saying the performance is the identity, that they are logically equivalent. To say that one identity is 'authentic' is to assume a hidden cause before the performance. If, for whatever reason, you aren't able to technically perform that identity, you can't become that identity. And I'm quite happy to extend this to 'butch' women, if they look masculine enough (such that they're effectively cross-dressing), I feel it would be correct to refer to them as men. If they're offended by that, well that's their problem. Communication is more than just words, if you're communicating one thing with your dress+presentation, yet saying another, you're the one who's out of line. You heard it here! Stay in a dress and keep that make-up on, you uppity sluts. You shouldn't be acting outside of your traditonal societally established identity if you don't want Rudatron to start calling you things you aren't. Archonex fucked around with this message at 11:30 on Mar 27, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2016 11:23
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:I really believe it can be helpful for all involved to find commonalities and actual differences. This includes the reasons here for treating the hypothetical Trump and misgendering cases differently. Last I checked Trump didn't have a 50% suicide rate. But hey, keep equivocating folks.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2016 13:39
|
|
|
Commie NedFlanders posted:Is there any way we can talk about cultural appropriation and "transracial" identities as a (very) rough analogy for transgender identities, without being banned or probated for triggering emotions? No, no, there isn't. Or at least, if you actually believe them being a black woman on the inside has anything to do with being trans or genderfluid it isn't. Archonex fucked around with this message at 19:22 on Mar 29, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2016 19:01
|
|
and claimed he was a black woman on the inside
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 11:41 |
|
|
Commie NedFlanders posted:I'm serious, I had several classes with this person and nobody knew how to refer to this person as a he or a she, and one of my cisgender cisethnic black female friends told me she found it offensive but didn't want to cause a fuss by saying anything but every time they would talk like that I felt like she was humiliated and nobody knew what to say, if anything Going to assume you're serious here. Edited my post with more info but i'll post it here since it got page sniped: Look at the definition of what a transgender person is. You see how it mentions stuff like gender dysphoria, issues with the gender they've had to present to society, etc, etc? That has nothing to do with someone who is white and thinks they're a black woman on the inside. There's no biological predisposition for a sense of internalized race when it's come to studies of the brain. Scans and studies have shown that people who have gender dysphoria often have brains and activity in the brain similar to the gender they identify as. Which is not same as the gender they appear to be. Imagine if you were a woman in a man's body. Or a man in a woman's body. That poo poo would honestly gently caress you up after awhile. And that's what the studies seem to be implying. That they literally have minds that are structured differently from the gender they visually appear to be. That's biological and a big loving deal due to the implications it has. Them assuming they're a "sassy" black woman is literally taking something cultural and applying it to themselves. Until someone finds a gene or does a comparative brain scan that shows that black women are predisposed to be sassy by nature then they're honestly kind of full of it if they assume that that has something to do with being trans. Long story short? That's on them, and it's something else. Who the gently caress knows what. I honestly can't say with any accuracy given the info you've given me. All I can do is wildly speculate. Maybe they're just using the actual medical diagnosis of being transgender as a shield (As some people used to and still do by claiming they self diagnosed themselves with aspergers to avoid being called out on being an antisocial jackass.) against being called out on something that literally doesn't exist. Or maybe they just are working through some poo poo now that they've admitted that they don't like how they are and just need time to get their head in order. Who the gently caress knows what it is, but it has no bearing whatsoever on the topic of transgenderism or gender pronouns. Maybe you can also see why people in the thread that are talking about a serious medical issue (and the societal fuckery that goes with it) might get a bit offended if you used it to try to equate to someone with black face too. Archonex fucked around with this message at 19:34 on Mar 29, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2016 19:23
|
|