Transgender Kids & LBGTQ Parents

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Addressing several fake claims here:

One of the vital misunderstandings seems to be a lack of understanding of the distinctions made between sex and gender....

I agree... but rather than "fake terms" I think we need to define terms, because one of the biggest problems in this debate is the re-defining of words, particularly "gender."

Sex is biological, physiological and biochemical. It is generally true to claim that there are two sexes, but as we learn more scientifically we learn that what is generally true is an approximation. Numbers and types of chromosomes are normal but there are variations on the norm. Physiologically speaking, there are two general categories ... But there are specific variations that can make a significant difference in how a human experiences their lives.

Yes. We are all a unique combination of male and female factors -- chromosomes, hormones, etc. What we consider the norm is basically the middle within a spectrum, or the majority within a range.

Gender is associated but not the same as sex. Gender is culturally defined based on male and female sex differences which is why we have the words man and woman. "Being a man or woman" is a statement about gender ... certain cultural and social definitions attend to the word ... modes of dress and grooming, typical vocations etc., behavioral expectations etc.

Yes, to the extent that gender is NOW differentiated from our sex, and yes to the extent that some folks want to re-define "man" and "woman" in their own image.

But no, most definitely no, to the extent that the definition of "man" -- an adult human male -- and "woman" -- an adult human female -- has long been established, and there is no new basis for which to re-define these words, and effectively un-define a still existing demographic. Even if we accept that sex and gender are different things, a trans woman will never the same as a woman, nor will a trans man ever be the same thing as a man. And while persons with the same sex -- i.e., anatomy and biology -- will have in common those things inherent in anatomy and biology, they will have nothing in common with the opposite sex who claims to be the same gender. One word cannot define both.

I would also point out that if one accepts that gender and sex are unrelated, that there is no reason to relate the two at all. In other words, if one's sexual organs do not determine one's gender, then there is absolutely nothing to link gender and sex.

In practical terms, this is why men who identify as women complain about "exclusion." They are "excluded" because they do not have those very important factors in common with women -- literal adult human females. We have very different physical needs and realities. My daughter-in-law and I once rattled off a long list of things that women seek the privacy and safety of the ladies' room to do and our respective husbands were a little taken aback. Not because they're stupid and didn't know, but they've never needed -- therefore never thought of -- the mens' room the same way as we think of the ladies' room. Male bodied people do not have the same needs as female bodied people.

Gender identity is how we EXPERIENCE our own gender. A trans identity basically implies that a person's experienced gender is not the same as their physiological sex.

I would suggest that gender identity is how we PERCEIVE our gender. I'm not trying to parse words here, but I think the difference is significance. Because gender identity is completely subjective. Even among those who do not experience any gender dysphoria. My female experience is very different than the female experiences of many women It is impossible to experience that which one knows not. We all only know what is within our own reality and experience. A male can perceive that he feels more like what he perceives a woman to be, but he cannot know or experience what it is to be a female. And, of course, the same for a female that feels like a man.

Repeating that a male cannot become female at this point in our technological development is true.

Claiming that a man cannot become a woman is merely a belief that is not supported by psychiatric fact.

Just to clarify terms here, my understanding is that transgender persons claim to always have been their perceived gender, but that it was overlooked because of their sex. So they are not "becoming" anything, but rather declaring their true gender. I'm open to being corrected though...

a reply to: Boadicea

Redefining gender? You mean in its current usage as I have stated here? Fair enough. How far do you want to go back, because using the word gender to point at psychological and socio-cultural charcteristics goes back into the 1960s ... so more than 50 years. Before that it was basically equated with sex (because people perform the gender that their sex requires), and before that a general term meaning "kind." Words change meaning over time usually as required by development and scientific discovery.

Agree on shared male and female factors, i.e., we all have both testosterone and estrogen, we both have chromosomes, etc. In fact, every fetus could be said to be female until the male hormones kick in, and our anatomy even reflects those shared characteristics if we pay attention.

How we perceive something versus how we experience something? Okay. I can go with perceive because that seems to relate more to the senses more directly than mere experience, so say for example we're talking about the primacy of visual characteristics? (grooming, dress, cosmetics). I can see some of that. Gender is also qualities assigned by culture which are sometimes unfair, e.g. men are more rational, women are more emotional. Men provide and protect, women nurture. Those can be facts, but those are also culturally created.

Recreating "man" and "woman" in our own image? You mean like when "women" were allowed to wear pants or wear short hair? Or maybe when "men" were allowed to work as cooks or "women" were allowed to work in "law enforcement"?

At some point every change was because someone stood up and said: I don't like the way things are, I want to change them, I want to create a world in which as a woman I can dress as I want, go where I want, own property, vote, etc.

Right?

No one said that sex and gender are unrelated. Gender is a direct result of or reaction to assigned sex at birth, because we are taught how to act, how to dress, how to be based on whether we are "a boy or a girl."

Right?

Distinction between certain physical reality differences in being male and female is a decent point. Perhaps rather than segregating by sex or gender we should provide PRIVATE facilities in public spaces so that everyone, regardless of what they're having to ... take care of ... in the rest room, can do so in dignity and safety?

In the 19th century there were no bathrooms outside the home for women to use. They certainly were not allowed to go into public restrooms (for some of the same safety concerns you've mentioned.) Plus, because women were more sensitive and fragile, certain realities of toilets would have been demeaning for them to experience. Thus, you better pee before you leave home girls.

I'm good with adopting a set of terms and definitions that we can all agree on. You are correct, sometimes words do make the difference between confusion and understanding or fear and acceptance.

I would like to acknowledge that I have used the term "gender dysmorphia" which is incorrect.

I should say "gender dysphoria" which is the correct medical term.

I appreciate very much that a member brought this up with me in private as I am very committed to accuracy in my posts.

Thanks,

Gryph

a reply to: Gryphon66

Argh!!! I wrote out a long response -- probably too long of course! -- and then lost it! Grrrrrrr

Okay. That must mean I need to do better. I will try... but maybe not until tomorrow. We'll see...

a reply to: Boadicea

I hate it when that happens.

With respect to Gryphon66 and yourself, this has been an excellent debate.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Eh, honest mistake.

I caught myself doing that a few months ago. They're very similar words when sounded out.

a reply to: projectvxn

Yes. In my head gender dysphoria is stored next do body dysmorphia.

It's hell to get old.

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: Boadicea

I hate it when that happens.

With respect to Grypho66 and yourself, this has been an excellent debate.

Thanks, quality debate is sure needed here -- but I gotta say Gryph really makes me bring my A game! He's a worthy "opponent" and one of our true ATS Gems.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Changes in the idea that there is one standard (straight, cisgendered) that is acceptable?

Strawman. I did not say that in any post I've ever written anywhere on ATS.

Yes, it absolutely is a rights movement.

No, it isn't. They are making demands of the VAST majority of people. Rights movements don't make attempts to compel speech or distort science to fit a sociopolitical narrative.

Transgender Americans have the same rights as all other Americans.

Yes they do.

Transgender American children have the same rights to medical treatment as any other American when diagnosed and prescribed by licensed health professionals.

The case I cited isn't a treatment for a dysphoric child. It is a case of child abuse and manipulation by his mother.

Your argument is that civil rights don't compel anyone else to do anything simply isn't true. If I'm Black and you don't want to allow me to vote on that basis, you will be compelled to do so by law because your right doesn't impose over my right.

Denying the rights of others and receiving a consequence for it isn't a compulsory situation. This is like saying that if I kill a person and the authorities arrest me and give me the death penalty, that I am being compelled to make a change in my life that others have no right in enforcing. Clearly this view is nonsense and another strawman on your part.

Medical science and legal precedent accepts that transgender Americans exist and have a right to exist as they are.

No one is questioning their existence or the right thereof. I am standing against a fake "rights" movement that seeks to upend societal norms in intractable and impractical ways. To add to that, this movement seeks to undermine informed consent by saying that "trans women are women" and that straight men don't have to be told what they are getting into. Having the right to exist is one thing. IMPOSING yourself on others is NOT a right.

I don't even know what to say about your claim that "the gay rights movement didn't require anyone to change their beliefs." I've lived through it for 53 years. I can assure you that it did require massive changes in beliefs on the part of some and it does every single day. The very premise of this thread is that gay people might cause their kids to be transgender. Based on what? One example.

Probably this... and ... it's this?

Yeah, there are problems with the LGBT community and their tolerance for this abuse.

originally posted by: Boadicea

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: Boadicea

I hate it when that happens.

With respect to Grypho66 and yourself, this has been an excellent debate.

Thanks, quality debate is sure needed here -- but I gotta say Gryph really makes me bring my A game! He's a worthy "opponent" and one of our true ATS Gems.

Agreed.

Gryph is exactly the kind of poster I appreciate.

Hopefully, he/she feels the same even if we don't agree.

a reply to: projectvxn

Your posts actually are not only logically consistent, but you still manage to empower your argument with the force of your convictions.

I tend to repeat myself, LOL.

I'm appreciating the discussion. It's very important to get this off our chests and remember that pro and con we are ALL STILL AMERICANS.

They have managed to make many of us forget that fact.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I want to make it quite clear that I do not advocate for the discrimination or maltreatment of transgendered individuals at all.

My issue is with the rights movement as I understand it. I believe that any movement for the recognition of rights cannot be an imposition on the natural or civil rights of others. If we can get passed the very concerning issues that I have discussed then we can't really address the problems, honestly, that afflict the transgendered community, and the LGBT community at large.

I do not advocate for leaving people behind or denying rights to others. But I do believe in taking enough useful data into account to make informed policy decisions and the supporting legislation that will inevitably come.

We are indeed all Americans. For this reason, I don't acquiesce, without deep levels of analysis, to the whims of any groups regardless of how impassioned their argument may be.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Boadicea

Redefining gender? You mean in its current usage as I have stated here? Fair enough....Words change meaning over time usually as required by development and scientific discovery.

Yes, definitely -- and it's a good thing. We need words to evolve and expand as our technology and world evolve and expand.

I think the problem here is that there are competing, diametrically opposed opinions on how to define "gender." We have traditionalists (for want of a better word), who define gender with gender norms and stereotypes according to sex, and we have the gender critical (again for want of a better word) who define gender as sex and reject all gender norms and stereotypes, and we have the woke (once again, for want of a better word) who define gender with gender norms and stereotypes in accordance with but separate from sex.

And in theory and in practice, each one is not only subjective, but defines/re-defines not just their own gender and gender identity, but the gender and gender identity of others.

Agree on male and female factors, i.e., we all have both testosterone and estrogen, we both have chromosomes, etc.

How we perceive something versus how we experience something? Okay. I can go with perceive...

Cool. 'Nuff said then!

Recreating "man" and "woman" in our own image? You mean like when "women" were allowed to wear pants or wear short hair? Or maybe when "men" were allowed to work as cooks or "women" were allowed to work in "law enforcement"?

No, of course not.

I mean when men who identify as women re-define "woman" in their image, and their demands for inclusion necessarily results in the exclusion of those persons formerly known as women, reducing adult human females to "bleeders," "uterus havers," and "chestfeeders" in the process. Or when male bodied persons who identify as women in women's sports, with their inherent male bodied advantages, re-define "woman" in their image to dominate and beat the smaller and weaker female bodied person.

Distinction between certain physical reality differences in being male and female is a decent point. Perhaps rather than segregating by sex or gender we should provide PRIVATE facilities in pubic spaces so that everyone, regardless of what they're having to ... take care of in the rest room, can do so in dignity and safety?

I agree. I think a new or third option is the only practical and effective solution. Either single-use fully contained and enclosed facilities, or a gender-neutral facility in addition to single-sex facilities. Both would provide a much appreciated option for other people as well -- for examples fathers out with their daughters, or mothers out with their sons. Single-sex facilities serve their purpose, but sometimes those purposes don't serve everyone.

In the 19th century there were no bathrooms outside the home for women to use.... Thus, you better pee before you leave home girls.

I do!!!

I'm good with adopting a set of terms and definitions that we can all agree on. You are correct, sometimes words do make the difference between confusion and understanding or fear and acceptance.

I think confusing language and terminology is a huge problem in this debate/discussion. I often feel like people are talking at or past each other, never understanding that their words don't mean the same thing to each other. I also think much of this is by design, but much is just that folks are not on the same page in general.

(Well looky there! Wasn't as hard to write up again as I thought it would be )

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: projectvxn
It's very important to ... remember that pro and con we are ALL STILL AMERICANS.

They have managed to make many of us forget that fact.

YES!!!

This cannot be said enough or too much. Thanks for saying it.

a reply to: projectvxn

Point taken. My assertion is indeed full of straw in regard to our individual discussion, but I would say it holds in terms of the various points in the thread, but, you are right and I am wrong in that regard.

Constitutional republics differ from democracies in that the will of the majority cannot remove the rights of the minority neither can the will of the minority overcome the rights of the majority. The quesiton is RIGHTS.

The rights that I see trans folks asking for are not unlike those that any group that has been repressed, ignored and denied a place at the table.

That said, there are always extremists in every group. There are extremists in all "camps" that are quite simply off their freaking rockers if I may be so bold. Trans advocates as well as those who oppose them.

IF anyone let me know, politely, that they would prefer I use a certain pronoun when referring to them, I would do my best to do so, but that is because I consider that a matter of good MANNERS, not because someone is demanding it.

The government cannot compel speech anymore than it can forbid it (within legal exceptions of course.) That part of the laws in NYC and so forth are crazy.

I gave a long list above regarding the rights that Transgender Americans have, but those rights do not arise from their being Transgender, they are NATURAL RIGHTS codified and acknowledged by our Constittuion to all AMERICANS.

The case we were discussing has involved legions of doctors, psychologists, lawyers, etc. I see your point based on your beliefs but there is no legal sense in which James/Luna's mother is being "abusive." Disagree.

IF societal norms deprive Americans of their rights they need to be upended.

You're holding acts of extremist murderous nutjobs as indicative of a whole class of individuals. Fallacious at best. The second example while told from the perspective of a fundamentalist Christian site is quite simply utterly biased. Reading the article and what the moms of the kid actually said, for example:

“I’m constantly like trying to queer my relationship with him and get him to wear tutus. He hates it. He’s just like, ‘no,’” Michelle said. “When I catch myself trying to do these things, it ends up making me feel really retro and dumb about gender,” Michelle continued. “It just takes me away from the reality of like, him. Atticus. Like who is he? What does he want? And the sort of purity of the things that he’s interested in or delighted by.” “Obviously, I want to support whatever he wants to be,” Michelle said.

Sorry, can't see anything wrong with that. You can't make someone straight or gay or trans, and the mom is recognizing that.

a reply to: Boadicea

I would dispute so much that words need to evolve in so many cases. Some thing, especially if they seem to radically change the meaning of a word, might actually deserve new words entirely.

a reply to: projectvxn

Oh trust me. I know there are issues facing all of us. I have to tell you though that based on the people I know, and the same-sex parents I know, NONE OF THEM would force their kids to do anything that was against their well-being.

That's a limited sample sure, but that drives my understanding of the topic. Same thing with Blacks. I hear folks talking about all Black Americans as if they all still live in the projects. I am SURROUNDED by great middle class Black families, Asian families, Latino families, etc. None of the sterotypes are true OF THE INDIVIDUALS I KNOW.

The problem is, to me, that our media, all of it, corporate, freelance, independent is carefully designed to keep ALL OF US constantly on edge, in adrenalin surge or withdrawal.

I understand all of this in terms of the natural or bell curve. Most of us are in the middle and just want to get along caring for ourselves and our famlies. It is the extremists authoritarian nutjob tyrants on both "sides" that want to demand that we do or not do this or that, and metaphorically at least, the Tree of Liberty is thirsty.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Boadicea

I would dispute so much that words need to evolve in so many cases. Some thing, especially if they seem to radically change the meaning of a word, might actually deserve new words entirely.

That's true enough. No dispute. Sometimes definitions expand or evolve, sometimes we need whole new words.

In this discussion, I would suggest that the definition of "gender" has both expanded and evolved with common usage, and this is appropriate.

On the other hand, it is not appropriate in the case of "woman" for a man who identifies as a woman, which does not expand or evolve the definition, but establishes an entirely new definition and undefines every adult human female.

a reply to: Boadicea

The only thing that is generally true is that nothing is generally true.

That's the fundamental paradox of human language.

Another example:

The statement just below is false.

The statement just above is true.

Let your brain resonnate between those two a few times but careful, at some point you fall off the sheer cliff of the meaninglessness of language.

Most of us are born male or female. Though each individual is different, taken generally, we are either one or the other, with some small percentage of true intersex individuals.

I don't understand the reality of the whole trans/non-binary/gender fluid experience. I am a man that enjoys being a man who likes men. I have no idea how a woman feels to be a woman. I literally cannot imagine what it would be like to feel in the depths of my body and soul that I am not what my body tells me I am. I can't; I've tried.

That seems like hell on earth though. How would it feel to know or believe in your heart that you are in the wrong body?

Betrayed?

I'll be the first to admit, I know some snotty little gay boys and non-gender-confirming brats that I'd just like to smack (metaphorically). I got introduced a few years ago into the trans/non-binary community because I got into a screaming match with a kid over proper pronoun use. He called me a cisgendered asshole.

I didn't even know what cisgendered meant at the time. I couldn't disagree with the asshole part in good conscience though.

His claim was that he was mis-gendered every day and it hurt him SO BAD.

I asked him what he meant by "misgendered." His answer was that some days he felt more masculine, some days more feminine and some days he just wandered in an androgynous wonderland I guess.

My question was ... how could I or anyone else possibly know what he/she/they were feeling that day? If he didn't know himself where he would find himself on the wildly resonnating ribbon of identity and gender and sex and orientation and ... yadda yadda ya ... how the hell should anyone else???

That's when he lost his stuff completely, called me an a-hole, and stormed off to the other side of the party.

I still don't know the answer, or even if I can know it.

a reply to: Gryphon66

in response to the first part of this post !

The Principle of Polarity embodies the idea that everything is dual, everything has two poles, and everything has its opposite.[9] All manifested things have two sides, two aspects, or two poles.

[10] Everything "is" and "isn't" at the same time, all truths are but half truths and every truth is half false, there are two sides to everything, opposites are identical in nature yet different in degree, extremes meet, and all paradoxes may be reconciled.[11]

the kybalion