UKC

Following on from "Daily Mail feeding frenzy...", why do some people find it so difficult to refer to someone by their chosen title after a sex change (you know who you are from that post).

If someone has a sex change and wants to be designated She afterwards it seems incredibly pointless and juvenile to insist on referring to that person as He/Him/His, especially after they've died. I mean, what's the purpose? To prove a point? To be deliberately insulting? Some sort of misguided quest for biological truth?

As far as I'm concerned if someone wants to have a sex change I have no opinion on it at all, it's no different than someone wanting to dye their hair or have non-gender changing surgery. At the end of the day it doesn't affect me or my life, yet there's something about sex changes that makes otherwise normal people feel the need to get involved as if they're scared it's infectious.

In reply to Sharp: I think calling them a he/she is terribly insulting, it's up there with shemale and ladyboy. Why would you do that?

In reply to Sharp: yes, this s*** is what the Internet was made for?! Who cares

In reply to Moggsy:

Transgender people and their friends & family care?

In reply to Sharp:

Ben

Sex and gender are different ideas; sex is biological, gender is a social concept. We generally align male sex with being a man and female sex with being a woman, but there is no intrinsic link. What Lucy Meadows went through is known as "gender transition", a term which RL took offense to in his article with such disparaging comments as "the word of the day is 'transitioning'".

Gender transition is a difficult decision for anyone to make, at any time of their life. Living in a body and a gender role you're uncomfortable with is horrible, but the social stigma associated with a transition makes it a pretty awful decision to have to make. Many choose to "start a new life" when they transition. For Lucy to transition in adulthood, in a job where it would draw a lot of attention, is incredibly brave, and the support from her school was clearly fantastic.

The response from RL and the DM is one of the worst acts of bigotry and hatred I've seen in the mainstream press for some time. There is no reason other than bigotry for RL or anyone on this forum to insist on calling a dead woman "he".

In reply to stewieatb:

I think that's going a bit far. I know some people think that everything's a social construct, and it's a nice view on which to predicate lots of liberal politics, but a bit of serious thought shows it to be untrue.

I'd recommend reading some Stephen Pinker (The Blank Slate particularly) if you're interested in what human nature is as opposed to social conditioning.

In reply to stewieatb:

Really? I thought sex was more about the body but gender more about the brain - ie how it has been wired by hormones and so on. Both biological of course. Transgender people are born with mismatching sex and gender. Not really anything to do with social concepts or constructs. As Jon says, read Steven Pinker.

In reply to stewieatb: Good post, "Conundrum" by Jan Morris is a good read on this subject - following her from being a bloke at the tail end of the empire (Army, reporter in the Suez war, reporting on the first ascent of Everest, fathering 4 kids, travelling everywhere) through to having the gender op in a clinic in Morocco. Fascinating and incredibly brave.
As someone on the other thread said though, *uckheads like Richard Littlejohn and his ilk only have a platform because we buy or click on their output.

In reply to stewieatb:



Don't read much do you?


He wasn't a woman, he was beginning to make the change. Wearing make up and woman's clothes doesn't make you a woman.

In reply to stroppygob:
But identifying as a woman, as she did, does.

That you deliberately use the wrong pronoun is an incredibly juvenile and insensitive thing to do.

In reply to joel182:

Well as far as I am concerned, until a person has had a sex change operation they remain their biological gender.

But you do highlight something that has been predominant throughout this debate, the tendency of those who are claiming some sort of victimisation or rights for Nathan to think that their way of perceiving the world is more morally right on no more grounds than; "I feel it may hurt someone if others have different ways of viewing and thinking about this issue, and therefore that makes them a bad person."

It doesn't cut the mustard I'm afraid, you'll have to learn that people do not have to think the same ways as you, and people with different views can be just as moral as those playing victims.

In reply to Sharp:


Because people are afraid of things they don't understand, and for some people the manifestation of that fear is to be insulting and offensive.


In the same way that people justify being racist along lines of intellegance and other races not having a soul, people justify acting on their fears by being offensive to trans people because they seem them as freakish and abnormal.

It's all rather sad really, it's an old fashioned, and outdated way of thinking and acting, and frankly, in this day and age, people should know better. But, like the slow but steady progress that homosexuals are making in society against those who see them as abhorrent, to be accepted as equals I hope that one day, trans people get the same acceptance and equal standing that they deserve.

In reply to stroppygob:
This isn't the first time someone's committed suicide during a gender transition and no doubt it wont be the last. Clearly it's a difficult thing to go through, it seems like a small sacrifice for you to make to call someone "she" to prevent causing someone pain. Sounds like you're the one inflicting your views on others, not the other way around.

You aren't standing up for any moral principles here by refusing to use the word "she". If it is so difficult for you then you could have used "the person/they/their...etc." You deliberately chose to use the word "he" and it's derivatives presumably in order to be offensive. If you're publishing something online then making a deliberate attempt to force your potentially hurtful opinions on people is no more than thinly veiled persecution imo.

No one said your views were immoral, it's your attempt to hurt others that people have a problem with. Ask yourself, if you had moral objections to homosexuality and found a gay person crying in the street would you go over and tell them your views or would you just f*cking leave it alone? You can show sensitivity to peoples emotions without disregarding your own beliefs.

In reply to stroppygob:

There was a very interesting programme on Radio 4 last night about just this. I am sure it will still be on iplayer.

In reply to stroppygob:


Maybe she was already a woman, but was changing her external appearance to match this?

You can legally change gender after living as the opposite gender for 2 years if you intend to continue living as the opposite gender until death. So the law doesn't agree with you.

(and to be honest, your post just makes it seem as though you are being deliberately provocative to get attention for yourself?)

In reply to Sharp:

Last night's Radio 4 programme:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01rbrtd

In reply to Robert Durran:

Stroppygob you're being an bigot I'm afraid, and just bleating on about it being just a difference of opinion makes no more sense than a racist doing the same.

By the way, you are aware that there's plenty of studies that show those that react the strongest to issues like this are often the ones that have deep seated related issues aren't you?

In reply to stroppygob:



Why on earth do you need to pronounce on this?

Is it a live issue for you?

Would anything be wrong with being non-committal till the question of pronouns actually comes up in your life?

You could wait till it happens, and then see whether someone you actually know who e.g. presents as female, and wants to be a her, seems to you to be someone worth wounding and insulting, or someone whose wishes you might as well go along with, just not to upset her.

Or alternatively, of course, you could sound off about it from a position of total ignorance on UKC.

In reply to stroppygob:


But this isn't about what you think. It is about how people feel and more specifically how they feel as a result of the ignorance of others. The fact that you are unable to empathise is irrelevant. It sounds like you are in the camp of people who feel gay people should just snap out of it.


Could you not apply that argument to people who suffer racist or sexist abuse as well? Surely (according to your way of thinking) they simply have to accept that other people feel superior to them and that being called a nigger or bitch is just the way the world works?

Or you could say that this sort of behaviour is unacceptable?

In reply to stroppygob:


This is quite revolting arrogance.

It makes absolutely no difference to you whether you respect someone's wishes about an incredibly sensitive topic to them, and it makes an big difference to them. And yet you believe that your opinion on how transgendered people should be referred to is just as important as theirs. It isn't. Your opinion does not matter, it has no relevance to bear on this subject. The opinion of transgendered people on how they want to be referred to does matter, because it is an important issue to them.

Stupid people often fall back on the completely fallacious argument that all opinions are of equal worth. They are not. Some opinions are based on careful consideration of the world, on how to achieve good outcomes, on empathy, respect and intelligence. Other opinions are based on ignorance, or tradition, or a mistaken interpretation of how the world is. These opinions have less value, because they cannot be justified.

An opinion that black people are inferior to white people is not of equal worth to the opinion that people deserve equal rights regardless of the colour of their skin. In just the same way, the opinion that transgendered people should be referred to according to their biological sex until such a time as they've had surgery is not equal to the opinion that you should call them what they ask to be called.

In reply to stroppygob:


It sure is handy when being technically correct and sticking to the rules allows you to mask your ignorance and bigotry behind pedantry.

You are a grade 1 dick.

In reply to Sharp:

I personally know someone who has had 'the change', and apart from the initial shock when I found out (I'd been working abroad and had no idea that he was intending to become she). He was married and had not to my knowledge been involved in a 'gay' relationship. Strangely enough my wife said that she always felt he had a lot of empathy with other females and was not shocked when she heard the news. We had little problem adjusting to her new identity. Talking to her afterwards we understood that she'd felt trapped in a male body since her teens, but had not felt 'gay'.

Even so when discussing our friendship going back over many years I often slip in to referring to her as him -- but she was a regular bloke back then!

We've not met in many years - though do occasionally make contact over t'interweb. The friendship is as good as ever as she's essentially the same good person that he always was.

In reply to stroppygob:

Cost to you of referring to somebody with what you consider to be the wrong pronoun - pretty much nothing
Cost to them of you referring to them by what they consider to be the wrong pronoun - quite a lot

There's no 'difference of opinion' going on here, there's just being a decent human being and respecting the wishes of others where it doesn't cost you anything to do so, and there's being an inconsiderate twunt.

Nope. The contents of someone's underwear is no concern of yours. Whether someone should be addressed as he or she depends on whether they are presenting male or female socially, which will depend on their gender identity.

It is quite possible to suppress testosterone chemically while keeping the testes in place and trans women will usually live this way for a few years while on the waiting list for surgery. Some will never have surgery, either due to other health conditions precluding it, financial reasons or just not feeling the need.

What about trans men? They don't typically have "the surgery" - most have mastectomy, some have hysterectomy, some have other lower surgery but others don't bother as the quality is not great.

Also, this biologically essentialist view has led to horrible problems with the substantial number of people who were born intersex. In the past ,determination of male or female at birth has been made with a ruler, and then the baby has been subjected to surgeries to correct what they have to make it comply more closely with the norm for the assigned sex. This leads to horrible consequences later when the child grows up and finds that they have sexual problems as a result of having bits cut off, to fit in with a gender they quite possibly don't identify with anyway.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Here it is:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01rbrtd

Excellent programme, as always. Talks a bit about the radical feminist "gender is a social construct stuff" too.

In reply to Gone:

This is not meant to be as facetious as it may sound but if a person is entitled to be treated as the sex/gender they say they want to be regardless of biology don't all kinds of legal and quasi- legal rules fall apart in everythng from women's sport to which loos people can use or even which prison they can be sent to?

In reply to Wiley Coyote:


So: "We can't possibly countenance this social change, we don't have the toilet arrangements for it."

Are you perchance a member of a London gentlemen's club?

In reply to Wiley Coyote:

The legal stuff is covered by the Gender Recognition Act. If your gender is complicated, then there's going to be complicated issues if you get sent to prison or want to compete in sports. These issues won't be solved by simply looking in someone's trousers/skirt.

In reply to Tim Chappell:

Not at all. It's a serious question, though as I said I appreciate it may appear facetious. But think about it. If you accept the premise that you are entitled to be treated as the gender you choose to be regardless of biology reality then logically a prisoner at the Old Bailey can stand in the dock and say "I actually prefer to be a woman. I wish to be called Tracey and serve my 5 years in Holloway rather than the Scrubs, m'lud"
Now that don't make no sense at all to me.

In reply to Wiley Coyote:

I'm sure not many people care if it makes any sense to you. Maybe if you took time to understand such complex issues instead of making crass comments things might begin to make more sense?

In reply to Wiley Coyote:


It does indeed, but I believe much of this has been sorted out in the
Gender Recognition Act 2004. Of course sporting organisations and the like have no doubt got some difficult questions to answer but I am sure it will come out in the wash eventually.

In reply to Pinged:

Crass question, if you don't mind. And happily someone who clearly knows something about the subject answered it by saying there is something called the Gender Recognition Act which takes care of the point I queried. Sometimes a bit of sense is so much more useful than just replying with insults, don't you find?

In reply to Wiley Coyote:

Point. Taken.

In reply to Wiley Coyote:


then logically a prisoner at the Old Bailey can stand in the dock and say "I actually prefer to be a woman. I wish to be called Tracey and serve my 5 years in Holloway rather than the Scrubs, m'lud"


And this is a problem how? Supposing it happened, why would it matter?

Why on earth do you think it's a reason for not allowing people to decide whether they want to present as male or female?

Those aren't rhetorical questions; I simply don't see what your problem is.

In reply to Wiley Coyote:


With regards to prisons:

"With regard to accommodation in prison, it will be unlawful discrimination if a transgender suspect or offender is accommodated less favourably than non-transgender prisoners just because of their intention to undergo, or their actual, gender reassignment. This means that it will be necessary to treat a prisoner who decides to live permanently in their non-birth gender according to their chosen gender unless there is a compelling reason for doing otherwise. Only the accommodation of a transgender woman in a prison along with women and a transgender man in a prison along with men will allow them to live according to their chosen gender, equally to biological men or women.

Any contrary approach, including the segregation of the transgender prisoner from other inmates, would be unlawful discrimination unless it is necessary, for example, on personal safety grounds"

http://www.journalonline.co.uk/Magazine/56-1/1009076.aspx#.UVBYYhdQYbQ

In reply to Tim Chappell:


The issue is not how they 'present' but how they are entitled to be treated. Long, long ago in a post far, far up this thread it was argued that biology was the only determinant of gender and the counter argument was put that if a man presented as a woman they were entitled to be treated as a woman. I was merely pointing out that is certainly not true in sport where we all know about sex testing and asking whether it could be true in law either. To illusrate this I highlighted an (albeit perhaps rare) example where it could pose problems, ie a biological male in a female prison.
On a more mundane level the question of toilet arrangements, which so amused you earlier, did have an impact at my wife's company, not at a London gentlemen's club as you suggested but in the supposedly liberal and progressive world of television. A man announced he was planning to change sex but in the period during which he was obliged to live as a woman before the op, a significant proportion of the female staff refused to let that person use the ladies, the individual concerned did not want to use the gents and eventually had to be provided with their own facilities, something even the md and chairman did not have. Once you move away from theory to practice things get messy.

In reply to Wiley Coyote:

Sport has clear limitations on hormone levels to limit who can compete in which side of the sport. Usually, the first part of gender reassignment is hormone treatment, and this will continue for the rest of the person's life. Someone who is biologically male but takes female hormones will meet these criteria in about 2 years, and the same in the opposite direction.

This came up in MMA recently, with a trans-woman competing in women's MMA and getting a lot of flak for it. However, the main advantages of being male, such as higher testosterone and therefore greater muscle development, are cancelled out by hormone treatment within about two years.

In reply to Wiley Coyote:

I wonder why? After all, it's all cubicles in ladies loos...

In reply to tlm:

Complicated I guess, some understandable reasons maybe (having suffered sexual assault by a man, etc.) and then some rubbish ones (people just being bigots, etc.) I'd guess.

I've never really got segregated toilets, seems very Victorian to me.

In reply to Wiley Coyote:


I think this is the sort of ignorance that needs to be tackled. Why did they not want this person to use the ladies? I don't really get it at all. It is becoming increasingly common to find uni-sex toilets and facilities in the likes of restaurants and swimming baths. Why is the idea of a transgender (former man) having a dump in the cubical next to you so horrendous?

In reply to Sharp: This would seem like a good thread to ask this on, when referring to someone who used to be a man but is now a woman, but you're referring to the time before their sex change, is it still correct to refer to them as 'he', since at the time, they were? I ask this as there's someone quite prominent in our sector (and hence talked about/referrenced quite often) who underwent a sex change and it always causes confusion with some people as to whether to refer to them as 'she' or 'he' when we're talking about the time they were called Roger rather than Sophie as they are now.

In reply to owlart:

Maybe just ask them somewhere privately and considerately. IME they'll be fine and probably happy you asked.

In reply to JayPee630: It's not someone who I work with, it's someone prominent in our sector. It's like asking a guy who works in PC World to ask Bill Gates personally what he'd like to be called!

In reply to owlart:

Then it probably doesn't matter so much, but I'd use the pronoun that they use now.

In reply to owlart:

If you were talking about a woman who is married, and who is now called Mrs. Smith, but you are talking about the past, before she was married, when she used to be called Miss. Snowdrop, it doesn't seem so hard.

Mrs. Smith used to go to school in Westbury park.

You wouldn't say "Mrs. Smith (nee Snowdrop)used to go to school in Westbury park before she was married. (unless you were specifically interested in the fact that she used to be Miss Snowdrop)

In reply to tlm: Except your example retains the same gender and so doesn't really address the confusion I was referring to as you'd always use the pronoun 'she'. When referring back to work done in the 1980's when the person was called Roger, would you say "He wrote the article because..." since at the time they were male, or "She wrote the article because..." since they are currently female? Currently people seem to use about 50/50 either way.

In reply to owlart:

You miss my point. Is it particularly important that you draw attention to the fact that she used to be a man? If not, then just use she.

If you need to because of a specific reason, use he.

In reply to tlm:

owlart's point is that the woman concerned has a very long history of work, that would be truncated or ignored if you didn't also refer to her male history (she's done a lot of chip development over 30 years).

In fact, you can't understand the development of computers in the UK if you don't know about it.

In reply to tlm:

The "(c) Roger" at the end of all their work manages to do that anyway.


Ok, thanks for that.

In reply to winhill:

Her work will be ignored unless you draw attention to the fact that she used to be a man? Can't you just talk about her work, rather than her gender? The wikipedia page manages it really well.

In reply to JayPee630:

I was expecting this one. God, so predictable. Calling someone who is biologically a male "he" is the same as calling someone of another race inferior due to their skin colour. Utter bullsh!t.


Again, so predictable, boring! Got a link to one of these "studies"? Thought not.

Isn't it amazing the amount of abuse some here seem willing to throw at a person for expressing a genuine belief?

The funny thing is, these are the same people who DEMAND we subscribe to their orthodoxy, and do not IN ANY Way deviate from their methods of expression.

So, id I state my genuinely held belief that it is ok to refer to a biological male as "he", that is grounds for calling me "a racist" a "bigot" an "closet gender confused person" a "homophobe", etc.

You demand we are polite and conform to your way of expressing yourself, or you will make up really nasty things about us, on no grounds whatsoever.

Hang about, isn't that a case of the pot calling the kettle black?

As I've said here in the past, the sacred cows of the left are held in the same way as a religious belief is held; "You will conform to what we believe or that makes you a evil person. Not conforming to our beliefs and ways of expressing ourselves, gives us carte blanche to say whatever we like about you, to lie about you even, with impunity."

In reply to stroppygob:

It's not a belief though, it's just being unpleasant.

And the reason people are reacting so strongly is because the self harm and suicide rate of people who are trans* is so incredibly high. So it touches a nerve.

In reply to Sharp: At the risk of being a three post nutbag, and to answer the original post; I would have no problem at all, in fact would feel obliged to refer to the person in the original debate as her/she after he had had a sex change. Unfortunately he hadn't.

A client on my caseload in the past went down that road, after living as a woman for half a year, he decided that it didn't feel right, and went back to living as a gay male.

In reply to confusicating:
You say "unpleasant" I say honest.

In reply to stroppygob:

No. It's not like that. It is simply being a dick. There is no need.

It really is very simple. Do what you like with your online persona, I really don't mind. So long as it doesn't contribute to someone taking their own life. Then there are issues.

In reply to stroppygob:

>...calling me "a racist" a "bigot" an "closet gender confused person" a "homophobe", etc.

In hindsight, does a list including "closet gender confused person" as a term of abuse seem like the work of a person with a difference of opinion, or, y'know, a bigot?

In reply to stroppygob:

So? That is what the year or two of 'real life experience' is about, to make sure it is suitable before going through any irrevocable changes - hormone blockers can be discontinued etc. And how are you expecting people to find this out if you won't let them live in role properly, because you won't treat them as a member of their new sex, and use the wrong pronouns for them, which trust me, is really really upsetting, and 'outs' them to people unaware of their history?

Or have you heard of one person whose marriage failed after six months, so you still refer to any recently married women as "Miss X" until a year has elapsed?

In reply to Gone: How am I stopping a person living the role properly by referring to them by their original sex on a forum?

Gosh, I must be clever to do that!

In reply to stroppygob:

So you are advocating using one set of pronouns/name/whatever on a forum or somewhere where they don't know you are talking about them, and another set if you were to meet them in person or somewhere where they might read it (and no need if they are dead)? Sounds a bit two faced to me.

In reply to stroppygob:

It's quite simple: Are you aware that referring to a pre-op transsexual using their birth gender upsets and offends them?

If the answer is yes, then you are being a dick and should stop.
If the answer is no, then you are now aware, and should stop being a dick in future

Why be deliberately unpleasant to people who have done nothing to deserve it.

In reply to Dan_S:

Only if they are aware I am doing so surely?

If for instance, back in the day, when my daughter was of primary school age, if her teacher Chris, (who she had a massive crush on, ) informed us that as of Monday he would be coming to school in women's clothes, and wanted everyone to call him "Christine", then I surely would have obliged. To do otherwise would be churlish.

But when discussing in the abstract on a forum, whose sensibilities are we taking into account?

Only those who choose to be offended on behalf of others.

In reply to stroppygob:


So you don't mind using offensive language behind people's back but you wouldn't to their face?

In reply to stroppygob:

As I've said before; male or female (sex) is about human biology and whether you have a Y-chromosome. Man/Woman (gender) is about the role in society you feel more comfortable in (and it can, legitimately, be both, or neither, or it can change periodically). These are not beliefs; they are statements of terminology and if we cannot agree on them then we simply cannot discuss anything.

Your insistence that a person has not changed gender (not biological sex, which cannot be changed) until they have an operation seems deep-seated in an inability to separate someone's gender from their genitals. It's a very arbitrary distinction to make, seeing as gender reassignment surgery can amount to several different operations over months or years. Which operation do you believe changes their gender?

A friend of mine is a trans-man. He had surgery some months ago now to remove his breasts ("top surgery"), but still has female genitals. He's also been on testosterone treatment for a couple of years now, and lived as a man by binding his chest since he was about 17. I believe he has no further plans for surgery. Would you refuse to call him 'he' because he lacks a penis?

Sex is a biological fact, and gender is a fact too. But while sex can be determined by a DNA test, gender is a feeling in your brain. As soon as a person decides they want to live as the other gender, we should respect that wish by referring to them as the gender and pronouns that they prefer. If a person genuinely feels they want to live as a woman, we have to respect that. An operation doesn't determine it.

I believe that all of this follows from the definitions of sex and gender I gave above.

Your statement that you would call a transgender person by their original gender behind their back, but their presented/preferred gender to their face if they had not had an operation, smacks of arrogance and two-facedness. It suggests that you think you know better than that person what their gender is. Under the definitions of sex and gender I gave above, that just isn't your decision to make.

In reply to SuperstarDJ:

That has to be the most silly thing I have read here in a while. You cannot distinguish between talking in the abstract on a forum, and talking face to face?

In reply to stewieatb:

If I read you rightly then, you are saying that what gender you think you are is more important than your biological make up?

Ok, in terms of societal role I think that's a go.



I've insisted no such thing, funnily enough. I did state I would call a male person a man though, unless they requested otherwise of me. And I still see no harm in calling Nathan a "he", when discussing here in the abstract, the unfortunate event of his death.


Why do we "have" to? We can choose to surely, and there you make a good case for it, but "have to"? Isn't that a bit too discriminatory?



Lucky I never said anything of the sort then.

In reply to stroppygob:

Discriminatory against who exactly?

If your only answer is "internet bigots like me who want to retain the right to use derogatory and insulting terminology despite knowing better" then really you've sunk about as low as you can take this discussion. I've seen you start off on various topics and reduce them all to this approximate position. This is all you've got isn't it? This is your personal soapbox, your own little UKC mission, your reason for keyboard bashing: "I want to be a w@nker and you lefty lefters can't stop me". If only you could manage to be witty or funny or entertaining with it, maybe it would be a little less pathetic. Please try harder.

In reply to stroppygob:

It doesn't matter where you express your views, for trans people, knowing that there are people out there like yourself, who fail to understand their need, their desire and their motivation to have gender reassignment surgery is upsetting. Frankly, doing one thing in public, but behind the anonymity of a forum, saying what you like is just two faced and cowardly.

You just don't seem to get the idea that gender and biological sex are two completely different things. Fundamentally it comes down to being educated, but you don't want to listen, and certainly you seem to be making no attempts at understanding.

From the EHRC discussing transphobia: "Whittle et al (2007) also found that a majority of respondents had faced harassment in public spaces. They noted that ‘73 per cent of respondents experienced comments, threatening behaviour, physical abuse, verbal abuse or sexual abuse while in public spaces.’"

If you extrapolate that out to the between 300,000 and 500,000 people who identify as transgender, that's a hell of a lot of harassment going on. Simply knowing that there are people like you out there, who hold negative views of trans people, will stop people discussing this topic in public to aid education, let alone consider undergoing the treatment and surgery they require to sort out their gender identity.

Someone else asked you at which point you think during gender reassignment, the person stops being a man, and becomes a women. You didn't answer. Why is that? Do you honestly believe that lopping of a mans penis changes him into a women, or giving a women a double a mastectomy turns her into a man? What about the years of hormone therapy they undergo before even getting close to having an operation? How about when they are sat in their bedroom, and for the first time realise that they feel, at the very nucleus of their being that they were born the wrong sex for their gender identity? In the same way people are born homosexual, or asexual, or black, or white, people are born "into" the wrong sex for their gender, and need help and understanding to sort it out. Why is it so hard for you to use the gender noun they want to use?


If this teacher decided that she wanted to live her life as a women, then it's not about being obliged to refer to her, as a her. You make it sound like an onerous task. It's about accepting that for years they have felt trapped in the wrong body and they finally have the courage do something about it, that they want to become a her, and they want and need your support. It's about having some empathy, being a decent human being and supporting someone making a dramatic and important life changing decision. It's about understanding that they feel so strongly about it, that they are willing to accept the insults, the abuse, the ridicule, and the condemnation from people, whether in public, or on internet forums like this.

Perhaps you'd actually be more concerned about the idea that your daughters crush, "suddenly" becoming a women means your daughter would be a lesbian? And if that's the case, why would that be a problem? Surely as a parent the most important thing is that your daughter be happy.


You're basically saying you can do and say what you like when you have the backup of the anonymity of the internet behind you. As your opinion is fundamentally borne of ignorance, people who are willing to support the differences in other people, even if they don't fully understand them themselves need to make the effort to educate those that are close minded and unaccepting of others in society.

Finally:



It's called reaction formation and is well documented:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaction_formation
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/opinion/sunday/homophobic-maybe-youre-gay...
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/assault/roots/freud.html

In reply to Dan_S: And it was in American Beauty

In reply to stroppygob:


Unfortunately the two aren't mutually exclusive.
jk

In reply to stroppygob:

Pretty much, yes.


From your second post in this thread: "Well as far as I am concerned, until a person has had a sex change operation they remain their biological gender." I'd say that's a pretty strong statement that you think gender is intrinsically linked to genitals, or having an operation. If you've revised this view since, then please let me know!

I will accept your second point (calling a male person a man unless they request otherwise) in general terms, but when a person has announced to their friends and family, their employers and their pupils that they wish to live as a woman, why insist on continuing to refer to them as a man? Do you want people to apply in writing before you will use their preferred pronouns and name?

There is no specific harm to Nathan (Lucy) by you using that name and pronoun, but I happen to think it's disrespectful to her memory. Lucy had "come out" as a trans-woman and expressed to everyone who mattered to her that she wished to live as a woman. I don't really see why discussing this on a forum is or should be different to in person, and even if it was, why you think it's more convenient or appopriate to refer to her as a man?


"Have to" might be a bit strong. At the very least, it's polite to, in the same way that it's impolite to use a nickname that somebody doesn't like or finds insulting. Is "discrimatory" what you actually meant?


"[I] would feel obliged to refer to the person in the original debate as her/she after he had had a sex change. Unfortunately he hadn't."

"If her teacher Chris informed us that as of Monday he would be coming to school in women's clothes, and wanted everyone to call him "Christine", then I surely would have obliged."

These statements juxtaposed seem to indicate a view that when speaking to a transgender person in person, you would feel obliged to use their preferred name and pronouns, whether or not they had had an operation. But when speaking behind their back, "in the abstract" as you put it, you think an operation determines which gender you should refer to them as. Why do you find the two situations so different? What exactly is so "abstract" about an online discussion?

In reply to stewieatb: Excellent post stewieatb, so nice to have some reasoned debate here.


I have, thanks to some information gained here, and I'm happy to withdraw that statement. I was in error.


Nicely put. It was/is a minor point of protocol, I still see no harm in referring to Nathan/Lucy as a he in abstract debate though. But some here have made such a meal of it that it has assumed a proportion all out of perspective.

Now we are talking about his/her memory, which again, raises issues. S/he lived as a man for 32 years, is all that to be ignored? S/he fathered a child and was in a conventional marriage with a woman, but that "memory" is to be forgotten?
>



Yes, that was my only concern that this "have to" was dictatorial, and rather insulting to other who may have different views. We are expected to respect teh views of some who want us to view Lucy as entirely a woman, but there is little respect for those who see Nathan as primarily a man. "Would prefer," rather than "have to" perhaps?


No not "behind their back", that has a pejorative context, as if I was doing something sly, with malice intended. It is impossible to talk "behind the back" of someone deceased.What I am trying to separate, is the real person from the abstract debate. I have no malice or ill will towards anyone. There is a whole world of difference about taking about a deceased person on a forum, to dealing with a live person in real life. I find it surprising that some cannot make that differential.

In this forum we can separate our emotional responses (well at least some of us can,) from our rational replies, and deal with what is a philosophical debate without needing to personalise and emotionalise the subject at hand.
Note for instance the heaps of vitriol and hate poured out wrongly over Littlejohn's role in this. If his part had not been personalised, but rationalised, some here would not have made such embarrassing statements.

As I said elsewhere; Left-wing pitchfork and torches brigades are as unthinking and hate driven as any of the "Laura Norder" brigade.

In reply to stroppygob:

You can't talk about a specific case in the abstract and so the medium or location of the conversation seems irrelevant. So, no, I don't think you can make that distinction.

In reply to SuperstarDJ:

But surely you can use a specific case to give a basis for discussion, without treating that case per se as if it represents all possible eventualities/outcomes?

In reply to stroppygob:

You seem to think that an online conversation happens between you and your computer, rather than between you, the other people typing messages, and all the hundreds of people who read posts, laugh at them, feel angry, depressed or bored as a result and never post back themselves?

How can mentioning specific people in such an environment be seen as 'abstract'?

In reply to tlm: Well for a start, the person in the OP is dead, so I doubt she (see what I did there?) will be offended. So we would be using that case as a abstract example.

Your point is more a case for not emotionalising by personalising a case, is it not?

If, as an example, I post "person X is a she due to her having a vagaina" then I have little or no responsibility for the reactions of your "hundreds of people who read posts, laugh at them, feel angry, depressed or bored as a result and never post back themselves, as only they carry the emotional reaction to whatever I have posted, only they have responsibility for their emotional reaction.(Basic cognitive therapy there.)

If we were never to post anything which may upset, offend, insult, conflict with, depress, bore,etc anyone else, then all forums would cease.

In reply to stroppygob:


Of course you would have responsibility for what you had written! You always do, no matter what you choose to write.

Yes - people do have some responsibility for their own emotional response too - but most responses are a mixture of external and internal stimuli. If someone hits you over the head with a big hammer, you are going to struggle to stay happy about it.


Nah - they would just end up like Facebook. Wow! you look great! Have you lost weight?! So sad about your puppy dying <HUGS>.

It's good to chew things over and discuss them AND for their to be a range of views (and for there to always remain a range of views - god, it would be dire if we were all one grey amorphous mass). But sometimes, what you write sounds more like you are just saying things for the sake of strife, rather than because you believe them.

In reply to tlm:

True, but you do not have responsibility for other people's reaction to it.


But if someone writes; "person X is a woman as she has a vagina,",/i> then you have a choice in how you react to it. You can take it as someone's sincerely held belief, abet you may think them wrong, or you can take it as a grave insult and become depressed over it, (even though it was not about you.)

Again, basic CBT.

> It's good to chew things over and discuss them AND for their to be a range of views (and for there to always remain a range of views - god, it would be dire if we were all one grey amorphous mass). But sometimes, what you write sounds more like you are just saying things for the sake of strife, rather than because you believe them.

No, what I am saying is what I believe to be the truth. I have also retracted at least one of my statements as I believe it was proved erroneous. I'm not addicted to the dogma of left or right, I enjoy putting forthright views and having them challenged.

What I do not like is being lied about, called names for holding my beliefs, or "you are a right winger so you believe XYZ”, being stated.

Thanks again for the pleasant chat.