Boys Can Have Periods Too!

[Sigfried]

Actually I embrace it (as evidenced by the lil smile faces when it happens should you happen to notice).
In fact, every time I think you are correct I will agree with you and will/have acknowledge it.
How bout you?

Always.

Then I am starting to understand your position

That is usually my #1 goal in a discussion.

But wasn't it you that said a "trans-boy was a biological girl" or ?

A Trans-boy was born as a girl but decided to live as a boy. If they want to live as a boy, I'm happy to treat them as a boy, but they are still a trans-boy. What they aren't is just a girl.

Unless you are proposing certain pronouns are only to be used for "gender" and not "biological sex"?

It's context. If there is no reason to distinguish, then just call a Trans-X and X. If there is some reason we need to know they are trans, say they are having a period, then you can say Trans-X so it's clear.

Example..
A: He's having his period.
B: What, you mean her?
A: No, him, he's trans.
B: Ah I understand now.

Political correctness is not my strong suit. I think it defeats that which it seeks to promote.

Being polite to others defeats what goal exactly?

That aside, who in this whole thread has promoted disrespecting anyone??????

Probably Evensaul, he tends to show a lot of disrespect for lots of folks.

[Belthazor]

Always.

That is usually my #1 goal in a discussion.

Except in my case on occasions...

A Trans-boy was born as a girl but decided to live as a boy.

Ok.

If they want to live as a boy, I'm happy to treat them as a boy,

Again,who has suggested you do otherwise, certainly NOT me!

but they are still a trans-boy.

My only point...sigh....

What they aren't is just a girl.

What is "just a girl" and what is wrong with that?

Being polite to others defeats what goal exactly?

1. That isn't really what that is about.
2. I am generally polite, it does not require this.
3. "Ethnic cleansing" is politically correct, it was called "genocide" prior (cause that IS what it is).

---------- Post added at 05:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:04 PM ----------

Probably Evensaul, he tends to show a lot of disrespect for lots of folks.

I believe at times you have shown me disrespect as well, as evidenced by us having discussed it in other threads.
That doesn't mean you are actually promoting disrespecting me does it?...

[Sigfried]

What is "just a girl" and what is wrong with that?

A cis-girl is just a girl and there is nothing wrong with that.

1. That isn't really what that is about.

It really is.

2. I am generally polite, it does not require this.

How many trans people can you count among your friends and associates? If the answer is more than zero, please ask them if it is polite to use their birth sex to address them.

3. "Ethnic cleansing" is politically correct, it was called "genocide" prior (cause that IS what it is).

It is not politically correct. It was a term created to describe the actions of the Yugoslavian army during the Slavic war of the 1990s. It refers to chasing out or "cleansing" an area of a given ethnicity, somewhat distinct from Genocide which has the goal of killing or total elimination of an ethnicity. Mind you, they get used interchangeably to some degree. But it was never coined as a kind of "polite" term for genocide. Nor would it serve to not offend anyone since both acts are considered great crimes against humanity.

I believe at times you have shown me disrespect as well, as evidenced by us having discussed it in other threads.
That doesn't mean you are actually promoting disrespecting me does it?...

I show disrespect to people I feel have earned it from me. I always try to start at a position of respect. but when someone takes actions or speaks words that warrant disrespect, I offer it. I see no reason that trans people have earned any disrespect form me, so I try to respect them.

[Belthazor]

I show disrespect to people I feel have earned it from me. I always try to start at a position of respect. but when someone takes actions or speaks words that warrant disrespect, I offer it.

Here is a significant difference between us.

When a person is an ass to someone and they are an ass back, it seems all that has happened is they have let themselves be lowered to the level of an ass.
You sound like you anticipate it, and calculate being on that level when the situation presents itself and perhaps even enjoy it.
Whether this is the case or not, you defend this type of response whenever you deem it worthy.

Now I am surely not saying I haven't done the same thing at times when responding to someone who is being an ass.
In my case it happens when my emotions override my intellect and I may say something I would not otherwise say. However, this is not something I am proud of, nor would I try to defend it.
Sometimes after my emotions have subsided, upon reflection, I regret having said something.
It concerns me when I allow myself to be lowered to such a level, since I aspire to a much higher standard of character.

(This is why emotions need to have as limited role in decision making as possible, because they can and do change all the time.)


With regards to trans-people, I don't believe I have shown, nor sought to promote others to show disrespect in this thread.
With regards to the Op (which was my only real issue here), clearly "just a boy" (per you) can not have a period.

The last word for this thread is yours...

[Ibelsd]

I see this thread has morphed into more of a general tg conversation. That's cool. Here is my question on gender and tg'ism in general.

First, let me try to state what I believe are facts.
1. Sex is a biological category. People can be male or female (putting aside certain chromosomal abnormalities).
2. Some segment of the population has gender dysphoria (GD). This means that some aspect of their brain does not align with their biological sex.
3. The DSM describes GD as a mental disorder.
4. Among children diagnosed with GD, the majority will 'grow out of it' by adulthood.
5. Among adults diagnosed with GD, for most it will be permanent.

So, I think gender can be defined as a state of mind or perception of one's self as it relates to sex. For most people, like 99.99% of the population, the perception and reality match. So, the question is how to address or treat people whose perception mismatches their biology. Is it appropriate to call them by their perceived gender pronoun? Is it appropriate to make public accommodations for people with this disorder? If so, how far should these accommodations go?

[mican333]

I see this thread has morphed into more of a general tg conversation. That's cool. Here is my question on gender and tg'ism in general.

First, let me try to state what I believe are facts.
1. Sex is a biological category. People can be male or female (putting aside certain chromosomal abnormalities).
2. Some segment of the population has gender dysphoria (GD). This means that some aspect of their brain does not align with their biological sex.

That is incorrect.

"Gender dysphoria is a condition where a person experiences discomfort or distress because there's a mismatch between their biological sex and gender identity."

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/gender-dysphoria/

If there's a mismatch but no distress, then they are not suffering from dysphoria. So not all transgendered people suffer from dysphoria.

So, I think gender can be defined as a state of mind or perception of one's self as it relates to sex. For most people, like 99.99% of the population, the perception and reality match. So, the question is how to address or treat people whose perception mismatches their biology. Is it appropriate to call them by their perceived gender pronoun? Is it appropriate to make public accommodations for people with this disorder? If so, how far should these accommodations go?

First off, transgenderism is not a disorder according to the World Health Organization.

And since I think the default is that should we treat each other with respect, I hold that EVERYONE'S gender identity should be recognized as their gender for social and legal purposes. Just like I show you the respect of referring to you as a male in all relevant ways and don't go around calling you "her" or "lady" or "miss", I would do the same for a transgendered male as well and say that everyone else should and the law should as well.

That's not to say that there are not specific instances where a transgendered person's biological sex is relevant (like regarding medical issues) but the default is that people should be recognized by their gender identity.

So again, the default is "recognize them by their gender identity" for all situations. If there are situations where it's better to consider their biological sex instead of their gender identity, they should be brought up individually and a case needs to be made why we need to not respect their gender identity in that particular situation. But without a good argument for not recognizing their gender identity, we should always do that.

[Ibelsd]

That is incorrect.

"Gender dysphoria is a condition where a person experiences discomfort or distress because there's a mismatch between their biological sex and gender identity."

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/gender-dysphoria/

If there's a mismatch but no distress, then they are not suffering from dysphoria. So not all transgendered people suffer from dysphoria.

https://www.psychiatry.org/patients-...nder-dysphoria
You kind of misinterpret the NHS definition I think. There is a diagnostic list that defines someone with GD. The following is found in the above link and is from the DSM-V.

1. A marked incongruence between one’s experienced/expressed gender and primary and/or secondary sex characteristics
2. A strong desire to be rid of one’s primary and/or secondary sex characteristics
3. A strong desire for the primary and/or secondary sex characteristics of the other gender
4. A strong desire to be of the other gender
5. A strong desire to be treated as the other gender
6. A strong conviction that one has the typical feelings and reactions of the other gender

In the list, you will notice that there is no specific diagnostic criteria which states the person must feel 'distressed' or 'discomfortable'. In fact, there is nothing which indicates that the person must have any sort of mood or associative attribute at all. So, I believe my definition stands. I would like to point out, only two of the above must be true for the diagnosis of GD to be made.

Since I think the default is that we treat each other with respect, I hold in practically every relevant way, one should respect their gender identity and treat them as the gender they consider themselves.
As I've said plenty in this debate, I have a friend who's a transgender male. I see no reason for me, society, or the law to not treat him as a "him" in practically every way.

So, if someone believes they are invisible, should we respect their perceived visibility? Should we allow them to run around naked since they perceive no one else can see them? What about age? Should we allow adults who perceive themselves to be children to participate in children's activities?

I'm sure we can think up a few scenarios where his female biological sex needs to be recognized (like in medical situations) but outside of these particular situations, basic respect for each other dictates that we should treat everyone by their gender identity. Just like I respect you enough to consistently refer to you by your male gender identity (which I assume matches your biological sex) and not go around calling you "lady" or "miss", I say we should show the same respect to transgender males.

Is there any reason why we shouldn't do this? Is there an overriding concern to treating transgender people with respect?

Is there a reason we say the sky is blue? Couldn't we define it as gray to match the perception of color blind people? Should we tell the color blind that zebras and horses are the same since the stripes are imperceptible to them? It wouldn't really hurt anyone, right? Except that we wouldn't be telling the truth. And I believe, in most cases, truth trumps respect. Yes, we could all play into your friend's perception and use male pronouns. And, if your friend asked me to use 'he' instead of 'her', I'd probably comply in a mutual interaction of respect. However, that's about as far as it goes. Beyond that, the truth matters and the truth is more important than your friend's desire to be respected. So, if your friend wanted to use a men's restroom, I'd think it was inappropriate. If your friend used the men's locker room, I'd find it inappropriate. And I am sure there are plenty of other instances where the truth matters. The reason why you don't call me 'lady' or 'miss' first and foremost, I'd think, is because it would be inaccurate.

[mican333]

https://www.psychiatry.org/patients-...nder-dysphoria
You kind of misinterpret the NHS definition I think. There is a diagnostic list that defines someone with GD. The following is found in the above link and is from the DSM-V.

1. A marked incongruence between one’s experienced/expressed gender and primary and/or secondary sex characteristics
2. A strong desire to be rid of one’s primary and/or secondary sex characteristics
3. A strong desire for the primary and/or secondary sex characteristics of the other gender
4. A strong desire to be of the other gender
5. A strong desire to be treated as the other gender
6. A strong conviction that one has the typical feelings and reactions of the other gender

In the list, you will notice that there is no specific diagnostic criteria which states the person must feel 'distressed' or 'discomfortable'. In fact, there is nothing which indicates that the person must have any sort of mood or associative attribute at all. So, I believe my definition stands. I would like to point out, only two of the above must be true for the diagnosis of GD to be made.

And I provided a definition that DOES say that discomfort/distress IS part of the definition of "dysphoria" (and I think the criteria you were forwarding would count as things that would cause distress so I don't think our definitions contradict each other). So my support that some kind of distress is required for dysphoria stands.

But either way, as long as we agree that one can be transgendered and not suffer from dysphoria (or any disorder), this point needs not further discussion.

So, if someone believes they are invisible, should we respect their perceived visibility? Should we allow them to run around naked since they perceive no one else can see them? What about age? Should we allow adults who perceive themselves to be children to participate in children's activities?

In most of those situations, I can think of a reason to not "go along" with what these people are doing (like people should not be naked in public). I can see no good reason to not "go along" with a person's gender identity if it's different than their biological sex in a vast majority of situations.

Is there a reason we say the sky is blue? Couldn't we define it as gray to match the perception of color blind people? Should we tell the color blind that zebras and horses are the same since the stripes are imperceptible to them? It wouldn't really hurt anyone, right? Except that we wouldn't be telling the truth. And I believe, in most cases, truth trumps respect.

And this has what to do with transgenderism?

I'm certainly not failing to tell my trans male friend "the truth" when I refer to him as a "boy". The TRUTH is that he identifies as a boy and I am acknowledging that TRUTH when I refer to him as a boy. No one, neither he nor I, are pretending that he wasn't born as a biological girl.

So this "truth" argument of yours seems to be nonsensical at this point so if you are going to continue to forward it, please be more specific on what you mean about truth.

Yes, we could all play into your friend's perception and use male pronouns. And, if your friend asked me to use 'he' instead of 'her', I'd probably comply in a mutual interaction of respect. However, that's about as far as it goes. Beyond that, the truth matters and the truth is more important than your friend's desire to be respected. So, if your friend wanted to use a men's restroom, I'd think it was inappropriate. If your friend used the men's locker room, I'd find it inappropriate.

But then I don't think you finding something "inappropriate" a valid reason to treat transgender people with disrespect. Nor do I think that it is inappropriate for a transgender person to use the bathroom that they would choose to use.

Some transgender males, from all appearances, are men, right down to the genitals (after transitioning). So some transgender males are very masculine looking people with penises. And while I can't speak for you, most people would rather see that person walk into a men's locker room instead of sharing a locker room with women. If you would rather have a muscular hairy guy with male genitals walk into the women's locker room with your wife and daughter in there instead of men's just because this person was born as a biological female, I guess you are entitled to that opinion. But I'm pretty sure it's not shared by most other people and I see no reason why one should be forced to abide by it.

People generally don't want to be hassled when they enter a locker room so people, both cis and trans, are generally going to use the room that corresponds to their external appearance and not coincidentally, that is the choice that will cause the least amount of discomfort in others. So clearly the best policy is let people use the room that they want. What you personally think is inappropriate doesn't really amount to a good reason to do otherwise.

The reason why you don't call me 'lady' or 'miss' first and foremost, I'd think, is because it would be inaccurate.

Actually, i don't know if it's accurate or not. I've never met you in person and don't know for a fact that you aren't a female presenting yourself as a male on ODN. So I address you as a male because that is how you present yourself here and therefore I assume that is how you want to be addressed. And if I were to learn that you are actually a female who wants to be addressed as a male, I would continue to address you as a male out of respect to you. And I see no good reason to not show the same respect to others and address them by their gender identity regardless of whether it matches their birth sex or not.

[Ibelsd]

And I provided a definition that DOES say that discomfort/distress IS part of the definition of "dysphoria" (and I think the criteria you were forwarding would count as things that would cause distress so I don't think our definitions contradict each other). So my support that some kind of distress is required for dysphoria stands.

But either way, as long as we agree that one can be transgendered and not suffer from dysphoria (or any disorder), this point needs not further discussion.

Your interpretation of the definition you provided is poor. If someone is of the strong belief that they are the wrong gender, then that is a sign of discomfort. There needn't be a specific or separate feeling of being distressed or uncomfortable. I provided the most up-to-date definition from the DSM which is the tool widely used to diagnose mental disorders. Your definition is a guideline and summary of the diagnostic description which you have, as I just noted, misinterpreted. So, I think it is fair to claim that most, if not all tg people suffer from gender dysphoria. If they didn't, what would compel their behavior? In other words, attempt to explain how someone who is tg wouldn't demonstrate two or more of the items listed in the DSM.

In most of those situations, I can think of a reason to not "go along" with what these people are doing (like people should not be naked in public). I can see no good reason to not "go along" with a person's gender identity if it's different than their biological sex in a vast majority of situations.

That's nice. As long as you personally find a reason to do or not to do something, then I guess all is well. Bathrooms, Mican personally sees no need for the truth along biological lines. Walking down the sidewalk and the truth regarding one's visibility becomes important. Why? I dunno.

And this has what to do with transgenderism?

People who are tg suffer from a mental disorder and your solution is play along with their delusion and call it being respectful. I'd say, there are times when this is fine and there are other times where it is harmful.

I'm certainly not failing to tell my trans male friend "the truth" when I refer to him as a "boy". The TRUTH is that he identifies as a boy and I am acknowledging that TRUTH when I refer to him as a boy. No one, neither he nor I, are pretending that he wasn't born as a biological girl.

So this "truth" argument of yours seems to be nonsensical at this point so if you are going to continue to forward it, please be more specific on what you mean about truth.

The truth is that your friend believes he is a boy, but isn't. Your friend wants to be a boy. Pretends to be boy. However, your friend suffers from a disorder that causes his brain to disassociate himself from his biological sex. It is unclear how to best treat this disorder. I understand the idea of placating him by using male pronouns to help him feel more comfortable and in a private setting where you are just his friend, I think that's absolutely fine. However, when interacting with the broader public, the truth is more important.

But then I don't think you finding something "inappropriate" a valid reason to treat transgender people with disrespect. Nor do I think that it is inappropriate for a transgender person to use the bathroom that they would choose to use.

You certainly have the right to feel this way. However, we presumably have boys and girls bathrooms for a reason. That reason is generally based on what most people find appropriate and inappropriate. So, unless you are suggesting all bathrooms should be unisex, I fail to see your point here.

Some transgender males, from all appearances, are men, right down to the genitals (after transitioning). So some transgender males are very masculine looking people with penises. And while I can't speak for you, most people would rather see that person walk into a men's locker room instead of sharing a locker room with women. If you would rather have a muscular hairy guy with male genitals walk into the women's locker room with your wife and daughter in there instead of men's just because this person was born as a biological female, I guess you are entitled to that opinion. But I'm pretty sure it's not shared by most other people and I see no reason why one should be forced to abide by it.

People generally don't want to be hassled when they enter a locker room so people, both cis and trans, are generally going to use the room that corresponds to their external appearance and not coincidentally, that is the choice that will cause the least amount of discomfort in others. So clearly the best policy is let people use the room that they want. What you personally think is inappropriate doesn't really amount to a good reason to do otherwise.

You are citing the exception and offering it as the rule. More important than even bathrooms, women's shelters have been fighting this battle. Women's shelters have been sued by transgender women who have been denied services. Now, presumably, the transgender women looking for shelter should have known they would have been more accepted in a male shelter based on your reasoning above. Clearly, though, this isn't the case. So, in order to protect women who have been traumatized by men (i.e. domestic violence) and who have gone to a women's shelter for protection and shelter, the presence of a man isn't appropriate. The truth matters. Just because a person believes that they are a woman, it does not make them a woman. You don't know what people generally want in a given situation. All we can do is protect people who enter a given space with certain expectations that the space will be occupied by same sex individuals only. Whether it is a locker room or a women's shelter, women should have the right to feel safe.

Actually, i don't know if it's accurate or not. I've never met you in person and don't know for a fact that you aren't a female presenting yourself as a male on ODN. So I address you as a male because that is how you present yourself here and therefore I assume that is how you want to be addressed. And if I were to learn that you are actually a female who wants to be addressed as a male, I would continue to address you as a male out of respect to you. And I see no good reason to not show the same respect to others and address them by their gender identity regardless of whether it matches their birth sex or not.

Right, you have never met me. However, you believe I am male and you address me as such because it is your belief that is being accurate. It is respectful because it is the truth. I don't owe anyone respect. However, I do believe telling the truth is a good thing. I don't go out of my way to be disrespectful, but I strive to be truthful. Someone must earn my respect. However, telling the truth is my default behavior.

[mican333]

Your interpretation of the definition you provided is poor.

No it's not.

Here is the definition I provided.

"Gender dysphoria is a condition where a person experiences discomfort or distress because there's a mismatch between their biological sex and gender identity."

And I interpret that to mean that Gender dysphoria is a condition where a person experiences discomfort or distress because there's a mismatch between their biological sex and gender identity.

I'd say my interpretation is pretty accurate and you will need to do more than just saying it isn't to support that it isn't. So I have supported that Gender dysphoria is a condition where a person experiences discomfort or distress because there's a mismatch between their biological sex and gender identity.

If someone is of the strong belief that they are the wrong gender, then that is a sign of discomfort. There needn't be a specific or separate feeling of being distressed or uncomfortable. I provided the most up-to-date definition from the DSM which is the tool widely used to diagnose mental disorders. Your definition is a guideline and summary of the diagnostic description which you have, as I just noted, misinterpreted. So, I think it is fair to claim that most, if not all tg people suffer from gender dysphoria. If they didn't, what would compel their behavior? In other words, attempt to explain how someone who is tg wouldn't demonstrate two or more of the items listed in the DSM.

Shifting the burden. If if you are going to argue that all/most transgender people suffer from at least two of the items, it is up to you to support that.

And from your link:

"In adolescents and adults gender dysphoria diagnosis involves a difference between one’s experienced/expressed gender and assigned gender, and significant distress or problems functioning. It lasts at least six months and is shown by at least two of the following"

So the DSM definition likewise refers to distress and problems functioning. It also specifies that they have to have the condition lasting at least six months. Such a thing would likely not be mentioned if they all suffered from those symptoms as a matter of course which shows that your interpretation that they all suffer from those things regularly to be a poor interpretation of the link.

So the notion that transgenderism is a disorder or that a particular percentage of them suffer from a disorder is not supported and no arguments that uses that as a premise will be accepted until such a thing is supported.

That's nice. As long as you personally find a reason to do or not to do something, then I guess all is well. Bathrooms, Mican personally sees no need for the truth along biological lines. Walking down the sidewalk and the truth regarding one's visibility becomes important. Why? I dunno.

I don't know what you point is there. So let me make myself clear.

We have a good reason to not let an "invisible man" walk naked in public since public nudity should not be allowed. I don't see a good reason to let transgender people choose the bathroom based on their gender identity.

People who are tg suffer from a mental disorder and your solution is play along with their delusion and call it being respectful. I'd say, there are times when this is fine and there are other times where it is harmful.

Based on an unsupported premise that they suffer from a mental disorder. Argument ignored until premise is supported.

The truth is that your friend believes he is a boy, but isn't.

If you mean that you have chosen to define "boy" based on biological sex and not gender and therefore personally do not accept the claim that he is a boy because of his biological sex, that is correct. But he is not denying any truth but just interpreting the word "boy" differently than you do. What you are talking about is a disagreement on semantics, not a disagreement on what's true.

So let's see if you can provide an objective fact that my friend fails to recognize. It is an objective fact that he is biologically female but he doesn't deny that. It's an objective fact that his DNA is XX but then he doesn't deny that either.

So again, what objective fact does he not recognize that you are informing him by stating that he is not a boy?

Until you point out this objective truth, your claim that he, or anyone, is denying any truth fails.

Your friend wants to be a boy. Pretends to be boy. However, your friend suffers from a disorder that causes his brain to disassociate himself from his biological sex.

Smuggling a premise. Until you support that he has a clinical disorder, any argument based on that premise fails.

You certainly have the right to feel this way. However, we presumably have boys and girls bathrooms for a reason. That reason is generally based on what most people find appropriate and inappropriate. So, unless you are suggesting all bathrooms should be unisex, I fail to see your point here.

My point is you just saying we "should" do something is not a valid reason to be disrespectful to transgender people. A "should" argument needs to be based on a stronger premise that "because I think so". My "should" argument is based on the appeal to show respect to other people, which is a much stronger premise that "I don't think it's appropriate".

You are citing the exception and offering it as the rule. More important than even bathrooms, women's shelters have been fighting this battle. Women's shelters have been sued by transgender women who have been denied services. Now, presumably, the transgender women looking for shelter should have known they would have been more accepted in a male shelter based on your reasoning above. Clearly, though, this isn't the case. So, in order to protect women who have been traumatized by men (i.e. domestic violence) and who have gone to a women's shelter for protection and shelter, the presence of a man isn't appropriate. The truth matters. Just because a person believes that they are a woman, it does not make them a woman. You don't know what people generally want in a given situation. All we can do is protect people who enter a given space with certain expectations that the space will be occupied by same sex individuals only. Whether it is a locker room or a women's shelter, women should have the right to feel safe.

And would the women in the women's locker room feel more safe if a hairy transgender male with a penis enters their room instead of the men's locker room just because he was born as a female?

As I understand it, you would set the rules that locker room usage should correspond to birth sex and therefore the hairy trans male should be forced to use the ladies room. I, on the other hand, think that that person should choose which room he uses and if given that choice, will enter the men's room, which would make everyone involved feel much safer.

And no, I don't consider this the exception. As I said, and you did not rebut, people will choose to use the room that will cause the least amount of hassle so if we let them use the room they want to use, there will be fewer uncomfortable situations than if we force them to use the room based on their birth sex regardless of what discomfort it may cause.

Right, you have never met me. However, you believe I am male and you address me as such because it is your belief that is being accurate. It is respectful because it is the truth.

I'll speak for myself. If I was aware that you are biologically female and identify as a male, I would also know that it is TRUE that you identify as a male. And therefore I would be acknowledging the TRUTH of your gender identity by referring to you as a male.

I am in no way denying any truth when I choose to refer to you based on your gender instead of your biology. Nor would I be denying any truth if I choose to refer to you based on your biology instead of your gender identity. So neither option denies any truth. But one option is clearly more respectful and that's the one I would choose.

I don't owe anyone respect. However, I do believe telling the truth is a good thing. I don't go out of my way to be disrespectful, but I strive to be truthful. Someone must earn my respect. However, telling the truth is my default behavior.

And it's the TRUTH that a transgender male identities as a male. So why not acknowledge that truth when using pronouns and call him "he" and "him" when addressing him?

And the notion that it's good to tell someone a truth that they already know and would rather not have told to them just because it is the truth is no excuse for disrespect. If you had a fat co-worker, would tell him daily that he's really fat because you value truth above respect even though you know it upsets him when he's told that? I assume you wouldn't because he already knows he's fat and therefore your disrespectful true comment is needlessly disrespectful. Likewise there is no reason to remind my trans male friend that he is a biologically female by referring to him as a "girl". He already knows that. So I see no reason to be disrespectful in that way to him.

[Ibelsd]

No it's not.

Here is the definition I provided.

"Gender dysphoria is a condition where a person experiences discomfort or distress because there's a mismatch between their biological sex and gender identity."

And I interpret that to mean that Gender dysphoria is a condition where a person experiences discomfort or distress because there's a mismatch between their biological sex and gender identity.

I'd say my interpretation is pretty accurate and you will need to do more than just saying it isn't to support that it isn't. So I have supported that Gender dysphoria is a condition where a person experiences discomfort or distress because there's a mismatch between their biological sex and gender identity.

And I provided the exact criteria to determine when discomfort/distress is reached via the most commonly used diagnostic manual in the field of psychology.

Shifting the burden. If if you are going to argue that all/most transgender people suffer from at least two of the items, it is up to you to support that.

No, I am using logic to deduce from tg behavior that they must meet at least two of the items in the diagnostic list I provided. I don't think I am stetching logic by noting that someone willing to change their dress, inject themselves with hormones, and even remove/add appendages has gone through a sustained period of discomfort or distress. I don't think the time period changes this. It is not like someone feels distress from their gender and sex being different and then goes and decides to do all the aforementioned changes in the time-span of a couple of weeks. I am just using common sense. If you have a common sense rebuttal, which is all I asked for, then please share.

So the DSM definition likewise refers to distress and problems functioning. It also specifies that they have to have the condition lasting at least six months. Such a thing would likely not be mentioned if they all suffered from those symptoms as a matter of course which shows that your interpretation that they all suffer from those things regularly to be a poor interpretation of the link.

So the notion that transgenderism is a disorder or that a particular percentage of them suffer from a disorder is not supported and no arguments that uses that as a premise will be accepted until such a thing is supported.

I don't think tg is a disorder. It is a response to a disorder. It is a behavior which results from having gender dysphoria. Not all people with gender dysphoria are tg, but I cannot imagine how someone who is tg would not be suffering from gender dysphoria.

I don't know what you point is there. So let me make myself clear.

We have a good reason to not let an "invisible man" walk naked in public since public nudity should not be allowed. I don't see a good reason to let transgender people choose the bathroom based on their gender identity.

What is the good reason for not letting someone who believes they are invisible from walking down the street naked?

Based on an unsupported premise that they suffer from a mental disorder. Argument ignored until premise is supported.

I've supported this argument.

If you mean that you have chosen to define "boy" based on biological sex and not gender and therefore personally do not accept the claim that he is a boy because of his biological sex, that is correct. But he is not denying any truth but just interpreting the word "boy" differently than you do. What you are talking about is a disagreement on semantics, not a disagreement on what's true.

So let's see if you can provide an objective fact that my friend fails to recognize. It is an objective fact that he is biologically female but he doesn't deny that. It's an objective fact that his DNA is XX but then he doesn't deny that either.

So again, what objective fact does he not recognize that you are informing him by stating that he is not a boy?

Until you point out this objective truth, your claim that he, or anyone, is denying any truth fails.

Your friend is objectively a girl who perceives himself as a boy. Gender is nothing but one's perception which, I believe, we defined earlier. If you go to a ride at Disneyland and they say you are too short for the ride, you don't get to go on the ride, no matter how tall you perceive you are. And, its fine, if you want to call yourself a tall person, even if you are objectively short (based on average heights). However, when you must deal with a public space and expectation, your perception is secondary to the objective truth. Now, maybe you fool the guy at Disneyland by wearing platform shoes. It does not mean you are actually tall. It just means you fooled someone. Your friend may look very manly and is able to fool others into believing he belongs in a men's bathroom or a men's prostrate cancer meeting. It doesn't make him a man in any sort of truthful way.

Smuggling a premise. Until you support that he has a clinical disorder, any argument based on that premise fails.

I have supported this premise.

My point is you just saying we "should" do something is not a valid reason to be disrespectful to transgender people. A "should" argument needs to be based on a stronger premise that "because I think so". My "should" argument is based on the appeal to show respect to other people, which is a much stronger premise that "I don't think it's appropriate".

It isn't me making a personal statement. I didn't make restrooms for boys and girls. Those existed long before I did. And there is nothing disrespectful about asking someone to tell the truth.

And would the women in the women's locker room feel more safe if a hairy transgender male with a penis enters their room instead of the men's locker room just because he was born as a female?

Again, you present this extreme situation. If a man puts on a wig and a dress and fools women in a locker room that he belongs there, do you think they would appreciate that? Obviously, for tg people, their condition presents serious issues when wanting to make use of public accommodations. Let's not put the burden on the women in the locker room to concede their rights and well-being. If someone is tg, they have to make some hard choices and I don't know if any of them are good for everyone.

As I understand it, you would set the rules that locker room usage should correspond to birth sex and therefore the hairy trans male should be forced to use the ladies room. I, on the other hand, think that that person should choose which room he uses and if given that choice, will enter the men's room, which would make everyone involved feel much safer.

And no, I don't consider this the exception. As I said, and you did not rebut, people will choose to use the room that will cause the least amount of hassle so if we let them use the room they want to use, there will be fewer uncomfortable situations than if we force them to use the room based on their birth sex regardless of what discomfort it may cause.

Well, there are plenty of documented cases where tg women (biological men) sought shelter at a woman's center. Several tg people have sued for being turned away. So, you don't consider this an exception, but, seriously, how many tg people of either gender are absolutely passable? From someone who spent plenty of time in West Hollywood where tg people are found in higher numbers than elsewhere, it was generally pretty obvious who they were. No one was 'fooled' that they were not really men. The truth is that the issue of public accommodations is complex and I wouldn't make a hard and fast rule either way. I think each community probably needs to set the rules based on the people who live in that community. I'd imagine the rules in San Francisco would differ from those in Aimes, Iowa. And I am ok with that. However, I'd caution that women are marginalized when you allow men to use spaces specifically setup for them.

I'll speak for myself. If I was aware that you are biologically female and identify as a male, I would also know that it is TRUE that you identify as a male. And therefore I would be acknowledging the TRUTH of your gender identity by referring to you as a male.

I am in no way denying any truth when I choose to refer to you based on your gender instead of your biology. Nor would I be denying any truth if I choose to refer to you based on your biology instead of your gender identity. So neither option denies any truth. But one option is clearly more respectful and that's the one I would choose.

You are bending your reality to meet the perception of the person you are addressing. And, sometimes, I'd do the exact same thing. My son has a friend who is tg and comes to the house frequently. I use the person's name that I was asked to use and refer to the person by their chosen pronoun. I was asked respectfully and I respectfully agreed. However, when my son asked for his friends to spend the night, the boys were allowed, but his tg friend and his girlfriend were not allowed. I am going to be respectful, but when the truth matters, it trumps perception.

And it's the TRUTH that a transgender male identities as a male. So why not acknowledge that truth when using pronouns and call him "he" and "him" when addressing him?

As explained above, I will do that on a case by case basis. But, I do not accept that as being truthful. How someone identifies isn't a truth claim. If someone with blurry vision tells you the letter on the sign is a P when it is actually a D, they are being truthful in what they perceive the letter to be. The truth, though, is that the letter is a D.

And the notion that it's good to tell someone a truth that they already know and would rather not have told to them just because it is the truth is no excuse for disrespect. If you had a fat co-worker, would tell him daily that he's really fat because you value truth above respect even though you know it upsets him when he's told that? I assume you wouldn't because he already knows he's fat and therefore your disrespectful true comment is needlessly disrespectful. Likewise there is no reason to remind my trans male friend that he is a biologically female by referring to him as a "girl". He already knows that. So I see no reason to be disrespectful in that way to him.

But, if the fat person asked me to share a small space, I may have to point out that he's fat and that we wouldn't fit. Just like if my son's tg friend asks to spend the night, I feel obliged to remind them that they are really a girl and so it isn't appropriate. My desire to show that person respect is subservient to the truth.

[Sigfried]

Here is a significant difference between us.

When a person is an ass to someone and they are an ass back, it seems all that has happened is they have let themselves be lowered to the level of an ass.
You sound like you anticipate it, and calculate being on that level when the situation presents itself and perhaps even enjoy it.
Whether this is the case or not, you defend this type of response whenever you deem it worthy.

Now I am surely not saying I haven't done the same thing at times when responding to someone who is being an ass.
In my case it happens when my emotions override my intellect and I may say something I would not otherwise say. However, this is not something I am proud of, nor would I try to defend it.
Sometimes after my emotions have subsided, upon reflection, I regret having said something.
It concerns me when I allow myself to be lowered to such a level, since I aspire to a much higher standard of character.

(This is why emotions need to have as limited role in decision making as possible, because they can and do change all the time.)

I respect your approach, but, I've found that there are times when speaking the language spoken to you can achieve something that being polite cant.
1. You can show some cultural affinity
2. You can demonstrate that the language used is irritating and convince them it is in their interest to stop

In addition to that, I think there is some honesty in showing your anger. If someone pisses you off, it's not wrong to show you are pissed off. Its good to be in control of yourself. But so long as you are directing your anger with some forethought, I think it can (but is not always) a reasonable course to take.

When I was a kid, I idealized Spock from Star Trek. I really loved his approach to the world. Stay logical, don't let emotion cloud your judgment. But as I got older and considered the ebb and flow of life and the meaning of my own existence I came to realize that without emotion, there is no meaning. Without desire, there is no purpose. Logic is in service to emotion. Reason enables us to achieve what we desire. A good life balances reason and emotion and seeks both to understand the why and the how.

One of my hobbies is acting and role-playing. It's useless without anger, love, joy, hatred, and so on. These emotional states are as important to human communication as words are. They are an integral part of the human experience. You can't simply make them disappear, nor should you. But neither can they be allowed to simply ride roughshod over reason and logic because that way lies madness and destructive chaos.

With regards to trans-people, I don't believe I have shown, nor sought to promote others to show disrespect in this thread.
With regards to the Op (which was my only real issue here), clearly "just a boy" (per you) can not have a period..

It's just semantics at that point.

There are people who want to be treated like men who were born women. I'm happy to treat them like men if they are willing to play the role of man. I won't begrudge them the fact their body bleeds as a woman's does.

[mican333]

NOTE:

In you arguments, you often refer to "the truth" but often don't identify what specific truth you are referring to. In your responses, could you please add the specific truth you are referring to (such as "the truth that they are born biologically female") instead of vaguely referring to "Truth"? Thanks in advance.

And I provided the exact criteria to determine when discomfort/distress is reached via the most commonly used diagnostic manual in the field of psychology.

And you have not supported that any particular percentage of transgendered people experience such distress.

No, I am using logic to deduce from tg behavior that they must meet at least two of the items in the diagnostic list I provided. I don't think I am stetching logic by noting that someone willing to change their dress, inject themselves with hormones, and even remove/add appendages has gone through a sustained period of discomfort or distress.

I don't see what's so incredibly stressful about deciding to wear certain clothes. An argument could be made that those who seek to transition are uniformly experiencing stress but then not every transgendered person seeks to transition so I still don't see a coherent argument that says that EVERY transgendered person experiences such stress.

So what is the percentage of transgender people who suffer dysphoria? I don't know but it's certainly not 100 percent. In support:

"Some, but not all, transgender people experience gender dysphoria."

https://www.newsweek.com/transgender...entist-1475013

So I have supported that not all transgendered people suffer from dysphoria and there is no support that trangendered people all have a disorder of some kind since transgenderism itself is not a disorder and there is no support that they all suffer from a disorder.

I will not respond to arguments below that claim that you have supported that they all suffer from a disorder if it just says something along the lines of "I have supported it". Arguments that provide reasoning will be responded to.

What is the good reason for not letting someone who believes they are invisible from walking down the street naked?

The same reason we don't let everyone else walk down the street naked. I assume you have a handle on the reasoning for laws against public nudity.

Your friend is objectively a girl who perceives himself as a boy.

I you to SUPPORT OR RETRACT that my friend is objectively a girl.

To provide a rebuttal beforehand, you are subjectively choosing to define "girl" as "someone who is born as a biological girl" and subjectively choosing to not define "girl" as "someone who identifies as a girl". That is not objective, it is subjective. So I disagree that my friend is objectively a girl and challenge you to support or retract that assertion. While you may rebut my reasoning, you may not repeat that my friend is objectively a girl or make any arguments with that premise until you do provide support as you have been challenged to.

Gender is nothing but one's perception which, I believe, we defined earlier. If you go to a ride at Disneyland and they say you are too short for the ride, you don't get to go on the ride, no matter how tall you perceive you are. And, its fine, if you want to call yourself a tall person, even if you are objectively short (based on average heights). However, when you must deal with a public space and expectation, your perception is secondary to the objective truth. Now, maybe you fool the guy at Disneyland by wearing platform shoes. It does not mean you are actually tall. It just means you fooled someone. Your friend may look very manly and is able to fool others into believing he belongs in a men's bathroom or a men's prostrate cancer meeting. It doesn't make him a man in any sort of truthful way.

That is based on the premise that I have challenged you to support. Until you support your initial statement about my friend being objectively a girl, this argument fails for being based on an unsupported premise and likewise the analogy fails for you are comparing something that is objective (one's height) with something that you have not supported is objective (whether one is a boy or a girl).

It isn't me making a personal statement. I didn't make restrooms for boys and girls. Those existed long before I did. And there is nothing disrespectful about asking someone to tell the truth.

Too vague for a response. What "truth" are you referring to? If you mean, that the person is objective a girl, that premise is currently challenged. If you are referring to some other truth, you need to specify what it is before you have made a coherent argument that can be responded to.

Again, you present this extreme situation. If a man puts on a wig and a dress and fools women in a locker room that he belongs there, do you think they would appreciate that? Obviously, for tg people, their condition presents serious issues when wanting to make use of public accommodations. Let's not put the burden on the women in the locker room to concede their rights and well-being. If someone is tg, they have to make some hard choices and I don't know if any of them are good for everyone.

If there are no perfect options, we pick the best of our imperfect options.

And as I've been arguing, that odds are if let the tg person decide which room to use, they will make the choice that causes the least discomfort compared to some policy that tries to dictate which one they should use. And you can call my scenario "extreme" (although I don't know what you mean by that) but you aren't rebutting my argument that the hairy transgendered male with a penis will cause much less discomfort if we let him use the men's room instead of forcing him to use the ladies room because he was born a girl. And since that he will almost certainly use the men's room if given the choice, letting him choose is likely the better option than trying to dictate which one he should use. So while this scenario is just one scenario, it is support that letting people decide for themselves is the best option. Just waving it away as "extreme" does not invalidate it nor have I heard a valid argument for a different option.

I acknowledge you have referred to women being able to feel safe in the women's room but then my argument supports that women will feel safer if we let the trans male in my scenario use the room of his choice and likewise that tg people will more often choose to use the room that will make people the most comfortable.

Well, there are plenty of documented cases where tg women (biological men) sought shelter at a woman's center. Several tg people have sued for being turned away.

Which is a different issue than restrooms. I'm not saying that there are never situations where tg issues are tricky. But this does not rebut my argument about restrooms (which are different than shelters for abused women).

So, you don't consider this an exception, but, seriously, how many tg people of either gender are absolutely passable?

I don't know. I imagine that those that are passable are very hard to spot. For all I know, I passed a dozen tg people yesterday and didn't know it because they resembled their gender identity so well.

My trans male friend would likely fool about anyone who didn't know he was born female beforehand. He looks just like a guy.

From someone who spent plenty of time in West Hollywood where tg people are found in higher numbers than elsewhere, it was generally pretty obvious who they were. No one was 'fooled' that they were not really men.

How do you know that for every tg person who didn't fool you, there weren't two other tg persons who did fool you?

I mean you are essentially arguing that you know there were no tg persons who fooled you despite the fact that if some did you fool you, you wouldn't know it. That's kind of like being sure there is no counterfeit money in your wallet even though if there was, you wouldn't know it.

The truth is that the issue of public accommodations is complex and I wouldn't make a hard and fast rule either way. I think each community probably needs to set the rules based on the people who live in that community. I'd imagine the rules in San Francisco would differ from those in Aimes, Iowa. And I am ok with that. However, I'd caution that women are marginalized when you allow men to use spaces specifically setup for them.

Well, it looks like you either backtracked on forcing tg people to use the restroom of their birth gender or were never making that argument in the first place. So I'm not sure we have a disagreement on this anymore.

You are bending your reality to meet the perception of the person you are addressing.

I disagree. I AM aware that my transgender friend was born a girl and has a male gender identity. So I am not confused about the reality. I just choose to address him by his gender identity.

And, sometimes, I'd do the exact same thing. My son has a friend who is tg and comes to the house frequently. I use the person's name that I was asked to use and refer to the person by their chosen pronoun. I was asked respectfully and I respectfully agreed. However, when my son asked for his friends to spend the night, the boys were allowed, but his tg friend and his girlfriend were not allowed. I am going to be respectful, but when the truth matters, it trumps perception.

Until you identify the "Truth" you are referring to, this argument is not coherent.

As explained above, I will do that on a case by case basis. But, I do not accept that as being truthful. How someone identifies isn't a truth claim. If someone with blurry vision tells you the letter on the sign is a P when it is actually a D, they are being truthful in what they perceive the letter to be. The truth, though, is that the letter is a D.

So you don't accept the TRUTH that a transgender male identify as a male?

You act like you are being told something that is not objectively true and yet in these arguments you never specify what this objective truth is. How a word is defined is not an objective truth since a word's definition is based on what humans decide that it is which makes is subjective.

When it comes to transgender males, here are the two hard truths.

TRUTH 1 - this person was born as a biological female
TRUTH 2 - this person identifies as a male.

So in regards to transgender people, what objective truth is being denied by myself or others who accept trans males as "males".

But, if the fat person asked me to share a small space, I may have to point out that he's fat and that we wouldn't fit. Just like if my son's tg friend asks to spend the night, I feel obliged to remind them that they are really a girl and so it isn't appropriate. My desire to show that person respect is subservient to the truth.

No, you are informing them of your opinion, not some truth that they were not aware of.

Again, it is your OPINION that transgendered males are "girls" as in it's your subjective choice to ignore their gender identity and instead define them by their biological sex. While you have every right to decide who does and does not stay over with your son, it is about as disrespectful to call his trans male friends "girls" as it is to call his cis male friends "girls".

And you are not informing his trans friend of any truth by calling him a girl but instead informing him of your opinion that on what makes one a boy or a girl. You are certainly entitled to your opinion but you are putting your opinion over respect, not truth over respect.

[Ibelsd]

NOTE:

In you arguments, you often refer to "the truth" but often don't identify what specific truth you are referring to. In your responses, could you please add the specific truth you are referring to (such as "the truth that they are born biologically female") instead of vaguely referring to "Truth"? Thanks in advance.




And you have not supported that any particular percentage of transgendered people experience such distress.




I don't see what's so incredibly stressful about deciding to wear certain clothes. An argument could be made that those who seek to transition are uniformly experiencing stress but then not every transgendered person seeks to transition so I still don't see a coherent argument that says that EVERY transgendered person experiences such stress.

So what is the percentage of transgender people who suffer dysphoria? I don't know but it's certainly not 100 percent. In support:

"Some, but not all, transgender people experience gender dysphoria."

https://www.newsweek.com/transgender...entist-1475013

So I have supported that not all transgendered people suffer from dysphoria and there is no support that trangendered people all have a disorder of some kind since transgenderism itself is not a disorder and there is no support that they all suffer from a disorder.

I will not respond to arguments below that claim that you have supported that they all suffer from a disorder if it just says something along the lines of "I have supported it". Arguments that provide reasoning will be responded to.

I have argued that the very act of being tg is a sign that someone suffers from gender dysphoria. They clearly felt compelled to change their gender in order to meet their own perception which differs from their biology. It seems illogical to presume someone was perfectly happy with this conflict and chose to transition anyhow. I have read the statement that not all tg people suffer from gender dysphoria, but not a single source I found could explain why/how? It is just a statement made to appear factual, but with no logic or supporting evidence. So, I do not accept your support. You can either explain why my logic is erroneous or your can cite a more meaningful passage as to how a tg person wouldn't be suffering from gender dysphoria.

The same reason we don't let everyone else walk down the street naked. I assume you have a handle on the reasoning for laws against public nudity.

Ok. And what is the reason?

I you to SUPPORT OR RETRACT that my friend is objectively a girl.

To provide a rebuttal beforehand, you are subjectively choosing to define "girl" as "someone who is born as a biological girl" and subjectively choosing to not define "girl" as "someone who identifies as a girl". That is not objective, it is subjective. So I disagree that my friend is objectively a girl and challenge you to support or retract that assertion. While you may rebut my reasoning, you may not repeat that my friend is objectively a girl or make any arguments with that premise until you do provide support as you have been challenged to.

You are incorrect here. A girl is someone with the XX chromosomes and has female genitalia. It objectively describes a girl. Gender is not an objective descriptor. It is someone's personal perception. Your friend is a girl who perceives herself as a boy. You are choosing to use her preference which is a self-descriptive perception rather than the objective truth. Gender is mutable. Sex is immutable. I fail to see how this is controversial in the slightest.

That is based on the premise that I have challenged you to support. Until you support your initial statement about my friend being objectively a girl, this argument fails for being based on an unsupported premise and likewise the analogy fails for you are comparing something that is objective (one's height) with something that you have not supported is objective (whether one is a boy or a girl).

How is height and sex different? Because you say so? They can both be objectively described. Now, I could measure myself using my hands and claim I am so many hands tall and measure you using your hands and claim you are so many hands tall and no one would have any idea how tall either of us are since are hands are presumably different sizes. Does this help in clarifying someone's height? I mean we could certainly do this and claim it is perfectly valid, but in public when dealing with public accommodations, would anyone feel obliged to abide by our self-measurements? Would anyone oblige to only refer to us by our hand height? Outside of our circle of friends, probably not. And you could certainly say using the metric system or the U.S. system is subjective, but it the agreed upon measurement by society and it is uniform so when I say I am 5' 10" and you say you are 6' 5" everyone knows exactly what we mean. If I say I am a boy and you say you are a boy everyone knows what we mean. When your friend says she is a boy, it is not exactly clear what she means. It is like measuring her height with her hands in that it has no defined meaning and is completely subjective to her own perception. And hey, maybe she measures with her left hand today, but her right hand tomorrow and she comes up with two different heights, but both are equally valid, right?

Too vague for a response. What "truth" are you referring to? If you mean, that the person is objective a girl, that premise is currently challenged. If you are referring to some other truth, you need to specify what it is before you have made a coherent argument that can be responded to.

I think I explained this clearly to this point.

If there are no perfect options, we pick the best of our imperfect options.

And as I've been arguing, that odds are if let the tg person decide which room to use, they will make the choice that causes the least discomfort compared to some policy that tries to dictate which one they should use. And you can call my scenario "extreme" (although I don't know what you mean by that) but you aren't rebutting my argument that the hairy transgendered male with a penis will cause much less discomfort if we let him use the men's room instead of forcing him to use the ladies room because he was born a girl. And since that he will almost certainly use the men's room if given the choice, letting him choose is likely the better option than trying to dictate which one he should use. So while this scenario is just one scenario, it is support that letting people decide for themselves is the best option. Just waving it away as "extreme" does not invalidate it nor have I heard a valid argument for a different option.

I acknowledge you have referred to women being able to feel safe in the women's room but then my argument supports that women will feel safer if we let the trans male in my scenario use the room of his choice and likewise that tg people will more often choose to use the room that will make people the most comfortable.

You are making all sorts of assumptions here. I challenge you to support that you know what women actually want. What you are actually saying is that so long as woman in a given space are sufficiently fooled into believing that they are not sharing their space with men, then they would be ok with it. So, if any man dressed sufficiently enough like a woman to pass in a woman's space unnoticed, then women would be ok with this? And you like to use bathrooms as an example. Aren't genders specifically designed to accommodate biological females? Going to the bathroom is a biological act. There are no urinals in a woman's bathroom. There are typically tampon dispensers. This room functions to meet the needs of biological women. Someone's preference or self-identification does not alter their biology and does not give them license to use a space specifically designed for biological needs and where the expectations of the people in that space are that it will be shared by those with the same biological needs.

Which is a different issue than restrooms. I'm not saying that there are never situations where tg issues are tricky. But this does not rebut my argument about restrooms (which are different than shelters for abused women).

I disagree that they are different as explained above.

I don't know. I imagine that those that are passable are very hard to spot. For all I know, I passed a dozen tg people yesterday and didn't know it because they resembled their gender identity so well.

My trans male friend would likely fool about anyone who didn't know he was born female beforehand. He looks just like a guy.

How do you know that for every tg person who didn't fool you, there weren't two other tg persons who did fool you?

Funny when you decide to use the verb fool here. And I don't know.

I mean you are essentially arguing that you know there were no tg persons who fooled you despite the fact that if some did you fool you, you wouldn't know it. That's kind of like being sure there is no counterfeit money in your wallet even though if there was, you wouldn't know it.

For the odd trans person who may have fooled me, I spotted plenty who quite clearly couldn't fool anyone. It is just a matter of numbers. There are a limited number of tg people, so if I can spot obvious examples, then those who I cannot spot would be very few by just the raw number available.

Well, it looks like you either backtracked on forcing tg people to use the restroom of their birth gender or were never making that argument in the first place. So I'm not sure we have a disagreement on this anymore.

Where did I ever say 'force' someone to do anything? I said it would be inappropriate.

I disagree. I AM aware that my transgender friend was born a girl and has a male gender identity. So I am not confused about the reality. I just choose to address him by his gender identity.

Until you identify the "Truth" you are referring to, this argument is not coherent.

No one claimed you were confused. You have just chosen to ignore the reality in favor of your friend's perception.

So you don't accept the TRUTH that a transgender male identify as a male?

You are trying to smuggle the premise that someone's perception is the truth. Your friend undoubtedly perceives himself as a boy. It does not make it true.

You act like you are being told something that is not objectively true and yet in these arguments you never specify what this objective truth is. How a word is defined is not an objective truth since a word's definition is based on what humans decide that it is which makes is subjective.

When it comes to transgender males, here are the two hard truths.

TRUTH 1 - this person was born as a biological female
TRUTH 2 - this person identifies as a male.

So in regards to transgender people, what objective truth is being denied by myself or others who accept trans males as "males".

In a public setting we use definitions that are not solely based on an individual's perception. The word boy/man has an objective meaning in that we can define the term independent of someone's belief. Yes, the word boy/man are subjectively chosen as a matter of speech, but this is a rather semantic argument which is obfuscating the meaning of language. If I say I am wearing a suit and you see I am wearing pajamas, then my use of language would be confusing. According to you, I wouldn't be wrong and people should accept that I am wearing a suit. A restaurant with a dress code, per your paradigm would be disrespectful in not accepting my definition of suit. This is just word salad rendering language meaningless.

No, you are informing them of your opinion, not some truth that they were not aware of.

Again, it is your OPINION that transgendered males are "girls" as in it's your subjective choice to ignore their gender identity and instead define them by their biological sex. While you have every right to decide who does and does not stay over with your son, it is about as disrespectful to call his trans male friends "girls" as it is to call his cis male friends "girls".

No. That's the thing. It is not my opinion. If they have a XX chromosome and female genitalia, then they are a female. A girl.

And you are not informing his trans friend of any truth by calling him a girl but instead informing him of your opinion that on what makes one a boy or a girl. You are certainly entitled to your opinion but you are putting your opinion over respect, not truth over respect.

An opinion is something stated which isn't based on facts. In the English language, boy and girl have a very distinct meaning as I have noted multiple times. A tg person is simply someone whose brain tells them that they are a different sex than the one they are biologically assigned to. I am in no way offering my opinion when I call them according to their biological sex. I am simply stating a fact. More importantly, in a discussion of biological function, the person's perception of themselves does not matter. Like you said, they know their true sex. So, there is no reason to clarify how a biological function is impacted by their perception.

[mican333]

NOTE:

After making my post, I realized that there's quite a bit of redundancy in my responses, especially around the definition of certain words. So I'm posting two versions of my response. The second one is the whole thing. The first one is a version where I removed most of the redundancies so it's shorter and arranged the points so the ones on similar topics follow each other. I recommend you respond to the first and skip the second but maybe there's individual points in the second you still want to discuss so I'll leave it there.

--------------------------FIRST VERSION

I have argued that the very act of being tg is a sign that someone suffers from gender dysphoria. They clearly felt compelled to change their gender in order to meet their own perception which differs from their biology.

I assume by "change their gender" you are referring to gender reassignment surgery. But then they don't all seek gender reassignment surgery so your statement does not apply to all transgendered people and therefore does not support that they all suffer from dysphoria.

It seems illogical to presume someone was perfectly happy with this conflict and chose to transition anyhow. I have read the statement that not all tg people suffer from gender dysphoria, but not a single source I found could explain why/how? It is just a statement made to appear factual, but with no logic or supporting evidence. So, I do not accept your support. You can either explain why my logic is erroneous or your can cite a more meaningful passage as to how a tg person wouldn't be suffering from gender dysphoria.

I have explained why your logic is erroneous. It is based on the premise that all transgender people seek reassignment surgery which is an incorrect premise.

As for my support, I already provided it and will provide it again:

"Some, but not all, transgender people experience gender dysphoria."

https://www.newsweek.com/transgender...entist-1475013

THAT is support. I have supported my position and you have not supported yours.

Ok. And what is the reason?

Like I said, I think you have a handle of the reason public nudity is outlawed. If you feel it's important that the reason be specified, you can take the effort to do it yourself.

You are incorrect here. A girl is someone with the XX chromosomes and has female genitalia. It objectively describes a girl.

SUPPORT OR RETRACT that having XX chromosomes and has female genitalia objectively describes a girl. challenge.

Gender is not an objective descriptor. It is someone's personal perception. Your friend is a girl who perceives herself as a boy. You are choosing to use her preference which is a self-descriptive perception rather than the objective truth. Gender is mutable. Sex is immutable. I fail to see how this is controversial in the slightest.

First off, I believe you are incorrect that gender is mutable so the issue is controversial - I know I can't change my gender so I think the suggestion that someone else can is indeed debatable. But that's beside the point. The point is that you are DEFINING my friend as a girl based on his biology instead of his gender. So the issue is the definition of "girl" and definitions are mutable.

In other words, in this debate, your position that my friend is girl because of his birth biology is based on nothing more than "because I say that's how the word 'girl' is defined". Sure, there are others who will agree with you on that and there are others who will disagree with you on that. But there is NO OBJECTIVE TRUTH in the matter of which definition is correct. So my friend is not objectively a girl. My friend is subjectively a girl because you have subjectively chosen to define "girl" based on biological sex instead of gender identity.

Hence the challenge that my friend is objectively a girl. So again, do not repeat that my friend is objectively a girl until you have supported that assertion.

You are trying to smuggle the premise that someone's perception is the truth.

Objective truth? No, I'm arguing the exact opposite. Whether someone is a boy or a girl is based on how one defines the words and definitions are subjective, not "truth".

Your friend undoubtedly perceives himself as a boy. It does not make it true.

Right. It's subjective and no more subjective than you perceiving him as a girl.

Yes, the word boy/man are subjectively chosen as a matter of speech, but this is a rather semantic argument which is obfuscating the meaning of language. If I say I am wearing a suit and you see I am wearing pajamas, then my use of language would be confusing. According to you, I wouldn't be wrong and people should accept that I am wearing a suit. A restaurant with a dress code, per your paradigm would be disrespectful in not accepting my definition of suit. This is just word salad rendering language meaningless.

That just shows that it's best if people generally agree on definitions. It does not support that definitions are objective. I can show that your definitions are subjective by comparing them to a real objective fact.

For example, it's an objective fact that the world is round. That is an objective fact which, like all objective facts, is completely uninfluenced by human perception. When everyone thought the world was flat, everyone was objectively wrong and the world was still round.

But what would happen if not only I, but everyone in the world, suddenly called what you were wearing "pajamas"? Then what you are wearing would henceforth be defined as "pajamas" and the next edition of the dictionary would even have that as the definition and it would be no less incorrect to call them "pajamas" than it is to call it a "suit" today. Whether the definition is "correct" is entirely based on human perception. So the definition of "suit" is subjective. The definition of "pajama" is subjective. The definition of "boy" is subjective. The definition of "girl" is subjective.

So I think I have firmly established that no one is objectively a boy or a girl, including my friend. All definitions are subjective.

And if you disagree and still maintain that my friend is objectively a girl, please address my challenge and don't repeat that claim until you have supported it.

You are making all sorts of assumptions here. I challenge you to support that you know what women actually want.

I never argued that I know what women want and therefore have no need to support such a thing. I'm arguing about women feeling safe because that was what you forwarded.

As far as women feeling safer if the person who enters the restroom resembles a woman more than they resemble a man, I will appeal to common sense. OF COURSE women feel safer if they think that other person is a girl instead of a boy. Even if they are unknowingly incorrect about the other person's sex, they will still feel safer if they think it's a woman instead of a man.

Aren't genders specifically designed to accommodate biological females? Going to the bathroom is a biological act. There are no urinals in a woman's bathroom. There are typically tampon dispensers. This room functions to meet the needs of biological women. Someone's preference or self-identification does not alter their biology and does not give them license to use a space specifically designed for biological needs and where the expectations of the people in that space are that it will be shared by those with the same biological needs.

But then some trans-females have transitioned and have vaginas. So do you concede that THESE people, because of their biology, should use the women's restroom.

And again, if the issue is women feeling safer, all that matters is that the person who enters the restroom doesn't make them feel unsafe. And it's not like a woman with a penis can't urinate in the ladies room. A urinal is not required.

Funny when you decide to use the verb fool here. And I don't know.

I used "fool" because I was responding to your argument and you used it. And since you don't know, you cannot say that you could spot every transgender female in West Hollywood.

For the odd trans person who may have fooled me, I spotted plenty who quite clearly couldn't fool anyone. It is just a matter of numbers. There are a limited number of tg people, so if I can spot obvious examples, then those who I cannot spot would be very few by just the raw number available.

And you know this how? Did you get a count of how many transgendered people were in the area and then subtracted those who didn't fool you from the total number and found the remaining number very small? Or do you have no idea how many transgendered people were in the area and therefore have no clue on how many fooled you and how many did not?

If you say it's the former, please support. If you can't say it's the former, then it has to be the latter.

Where did I ever say 'force' someone to do anything? I said it would be inappropriate.

I was under the impression that you favored laws preventing transgender women from using the women's room. But that's not your position, then I retract that notion.

But then I assume that if you would rather have the aforementioned hairy trans male with a penis use the men's room than the ladies room, you don't find it uniformly inappropriate for trans people to use the bathroom that fits their gender identity. So do you concede that, at least some of the time (like the hairy trans guy scenario) it is more appropriate for transgender people to use the room that corresponds to their gender. if not, then you do take the position that the hairy trans guy should use the ladies room?












------------------------------------- SECOND VERSION

I have argued that the very act of being tg is a sign that someone suffers from gender dysphoria. They clearly felt compelled to change their gender in order to meet their own perception which differs from their biology.

I assume by "change their gender" you are referring to gender reassignment surgery. But then they don't all seek gender reassignment surgery so your statement does not apply to all transgendered people and therefore does not support that they all suffer from dysphoria.

It seems illogical to presume someone was perfectly happy with this conflict and chose to transition anyhow. I have read the statement that not all tg people suffer from gender dysphoria, but not a single source I found could explain why/how? It is just a statement made to appear factual, but with no logic or supporting evidence. So, I do not accept your support. You can either explain why my logic is erroneous or your can cite a more meaningful passage as to how a tg person wouldn't be suffering from gender dysphoria.

I have explained why your logic is erroneous. It is based on the premise that all transgender people seek reassignment surgery which is an incorrect premise.

As for my support, I already provided it and will provide it again:

"Some, but not all, transgender people experience gender dysphoria."

https://www.newsweek.com/transgender...entist-1475013

THAT is support. I have supported my position and you have not supported yours.

Ok. And what is the reason?

Like I said, I think you have a handle of the reason public nudity is outlawed. If you feel it's important that the reason be specified, you can take the effort to do it yourself.

You are incorrect here. A girl is someone with the XX chromosomes and has female genitalia. It objectively describes a girl.

SUPPORT OR RETRACT that having XX chromosomes and has female genitalia objectively describes a girl. challenge.

Gender is not an objective descriptor. It is someone's personal perception. Your friend is a girl who perceives herself as a boy. You are choosing to use her preference which is a self-descriptive perception rather than the objective truth. Gender is mutable. Sex is immutable. I fail to see how this is controversial in the slightest.

First off, I believe you are incorrect that gender is mutable so the issue is controversial - I know I can't change my gender so I think the suggestion that someone else can is indeed debatable. But that's beside the point. The point is that you are DEFINING my friend as a girl based on his biology instead of his gender. So the issue is the definition of "girl" and definitions are mutable.

In other words, in this debate, your position that my friend is girl because of his birth biology is based on nothing more than "because I say that's how the word 'girl' is defined". Sure, there are others who will agree with you on that and there are others who will disagree with you on that. But there is NO OBJECTIVE TRUTH in the matter of which definition is correct. So my friend is not objectively a girl. My friend is subjectively a girl because you have subjectively chosen to define "girl" based on biological sex instead of gender identity.

Hence the challenge that my friend is objectively a girl. So again, do not repeat that my friend is objectively a girl until you have supported that assertion.

How is height and sex different? Because you say so?

Moving the goalpost, I think. We were comparing height and whether he's a "girl", not height and (biological) sex.

If I say I am a boy and you say you are a boy everyone knows what we mean. When your friend says she is a boy, it is not exactly clear what she means. It is like measuring her height with her hands in that it has no defined meaning and is completely subjective to her own perception. And hey, maybe she measures with her left hand today, but her right hand tomorrow and she comes up with two different heights, but both are equally valid, right?

But then if you met my friend and he said he's a girl, you would probably be confused because he looks much more like a boy than a girl.

You are making all sorts of assumptions here. I challenge you to support that you know what women actually want.

I never argued that I know what women want and therefore have no need to support such a thing. I'm arguing about women feeling safe because that was what you forwarded.

As far as women feeling safer if the person who enters the restroom resembles a woman more than they resemble a man, I will appeal to common sense. OF COURSE women feel safer if they think that other person is a girl instead of a boy. Even if they are unknowingly incorrect about the other person's sex, they will still feel safer if they think it's a woman instead of a man.

What you are actually saying is that so long as woman in a given space are sufficiently fooled into believing that they are not sharing their space with men, then they would be ok with it.

Smuggling the premise that transgendered women are "men". And yes, if the person entering the room looks more like a woman than a man, the woman will feel safer than if the opposite happened.

So, if any man dressed sufficiently enough like a woman to pass in a woman's space unnoticed, then women would be ok with this? And you like to use bathrooms as an example.

YOU are the one who brought up bathrooms so that is where this debate is focused. If you want to concede that bathroom issue, I'd be happy to stop debating it.

Aren't genders specifically designed to accommodate biological females? Going to the bathroom is a biological act. There are no urinals in a woman's bathroom. There are typically tampon dispensers. This room functions to meet the needs of biological women. Someone's preference or self-identification does not alter their biology and does not give them license to use a space specifically designed for biological needs and where the expectations of the people in that space are that it will be shared by those with the same biological needs.

But then some trans-females have transitioned and have vaginas. So do you concede that THESE people, because of their biology, should use the women's restroom.

And again, if the issue is women feeling safer, all that matters is that the person who enters the restroom doesn't make them feel unsafe. And it's not like a woman with a penis can't urinate in the ladies room. A urinal is not required.

Funny when you decide to use the verb fool here. And I don't know.

I used "fool" because I was responding to your argument and you used it. And since you don't know, you cannot say that you could spot every transgender female in West Hollywood.

For the odd trans person who may have fooled me, I spotted plenty who quite clearly couldn't fool anyone. It is just a matter of numbers. There are a limited number of tg people, so if I can spot obvious examples, then those who I cannot spot would be very few by just the raw number available.

And you know this how? Did you get a count of how many transgendered people were in the area and then subtracted those who didn't fool you from the total number and found the remaining number very small? Or do you have no idea how many transgendered people were in the area and therefore have no clue on how many fooled you and how many did not?

If you say it's the former, please support. If you can't say it's the former, then it has to be the latter.

Where did I ever say 'force' someone to do anything? I said it would be inappropriate.

I was under the impression that you favored laws preventing transgender women from using the women's room. But that's not your position, then I retract that notion.

But then I assume that if you would rather have the aforementioned hairy trans male with a penis use the men's room than the ladies room, you don't find it uniformly inappropriate for trans people to use the bathroom that fits their gender identity. So do you concede that, at least some of the time (like the hairy trans guy scenario) it is more appropriate for transgender people to use the room that corresponds to their gender. if not, then you do take the position that the hairy trans guy should use the ladies room?

No one claimed you were confused. You have just chosen to ignore the reality in favor of your friend's perception.

Incorrect. I have ignored no objective reality and if you disagree, then name the specific objective fact that I am ignoring.

And don't say it's my friend being a "girl", because that is based on YOUR subjective definition of girl. If you mean that my friend has female genitalia, I don't ignore that. I just don't use that fact as my basis when referring to him.

You are trying to smuggle the premise that someone's perception is the truth. Your friend undoubtedly perceives himself as a boy. It does not make it true.

I didn't say that it was true that he's a boy. I said it true that he identifies as a male. And that is true. He absolutely does identify as a male. And since I acknowledge that truth, I likewise refer to him as a male.

In a public setting we use definitions that are not solely based on an individual's perception. The word boy/man has an objective meaning in that we can define the term independent of someone's belief.

SUPPORT OR RETRACT this assertion. Please define boy/man without resorting to someone's (like your own) belief.

Yes, the word boy/man are subjectively chosen as a matter of speech, but this is a rather semantic argument which is obfuscating the meaning of language. If I say I am wearing a suit and you see I am wearing pajamas, then my use of language would be confusing. According to you, I wouldn't be wrong and people should accept that I am wearing a suit. A restaurant with a dress code, per your paradigm would be disrespectful in not accepting my definition of suit. This is just word salad rendering language meaningless.

That just shows that it's best if people generally agree on definitions. It does not support that definitions are objective. I can show that your definitions are subjective by comparing them to a real objective fact.

For example, it's an objective fact that the world is round. That is an objective fact which, like all objective facts, is completely uninfluenced by human perception. When everyone thought the world was flat, everyone was objectively wrong and the world was still round.

But what would happen if not only I, but everyone in the world, suddenly called what you were wearing "pajamas"? Then what you are wearing would henceforth be defined as "pajamas" and the next edition of the dictionary would even have that as the definition and it would be no less incorrect to call them "pajamas" than it is to call it a "suit" today. Whether the definition is "correct" is entirely based on human perception. So the definition of "suit" is subjective. The definition of "pajama" is subjective. The definition of "boy" is subjective. The definition of "girl" is subjective.

So I think I have firmly established that no one is objectively a boy or a girl, including my friend. All definitions are subjective.

And if you disagree and still maintain that my friend is objectively a girl, please address my challenge and don't repeat that claim until you have supported it.

No. That's the thing. It is not my opinion. If they have a XX chromosome and female genitalia, then they are a female. A girl.

I subjectively disagree with your subjective definition and subjectively consider a person who identifies as a boy to be a boy. Your subjective opinion to the contrary is noted but subjective nonetheless.

An opinion is something stated which isn't based on facts. In the English language, boy and girl have a very distinct meaning as I have noted multiple times. A tg person is simply someone whose brain tells them that they are a different sex than the one they are biologically assigned to. I am in no way offering my opinion when I call them according to their biological sex.

If you mean you are saying "You have a vagina", then yes, you are referring to a biological fact. But if you call a trans male a "girl", you are CHOOSING to use their biological sex instead of their gender identity when you address them. You can choose to do either and whichever one you pick, it is indeed based on your opinion on how words should be used.

[Ibelsd]

--- I'll try to stick to first version.

NOTE:
I assume by "change their gender" you are referring to gender reassignment surgery. But then they don't all seek gender reassignment surgery so your statement does not apply to all transgendered people and therefore does not support that they all suffer from dysphoria.



I have explained why your logic is erroneous. It is based on the premise that all transgender people seek reassignment surgery which is an incorrect premise.

As for my support, I already provided it and will provide it again:

"Some, but not all, transgender people experience gender dysphoria."

https://www.newsweek.com/transgender...entist-1475013

THAT is support. I have supported my position and you have not supported yours.

That is not what I mean by 'change their gender'. I am not specifically referring to surgery. I am referring to all tg's in the sense that they are dressing like a different gender, may be taking hormones, attempting to use spaces intended for their non-biological gender (i.e. bathrooms or shelters). My argument is fairly straightforward. If someone is born X and their brain is telling them that they are really Y and this results in them taking the dramatic step of altering their appearance, hormones, or even their genitalia, then I imagine they are unhappy in their biological state. If they weren't, then there would be no reason for them to change. Logically, a scenario where this isn't true seems unlikely. So, yes, you have provided a quote which claims they are not suffering from dysphoria, but I am saying this quote does not follow any sort of logic. Therefore, the quote alone is insufficient to make your argument.

Like I said, I think you have a handle of the reason public nudity is outlawed. If you feel it's important that the reason be specified, you can take the effort to do it yourself.

You are shifting the burden. You asserted that my analogy of someone who thinks they are invisible, walking naked in public is erroneous. You claimed there are obvious reasons for outlawing nudity in public. I am asking you to define what those reasons may be.

SUPPORT OR RETRACT that having XX chromosomes and has female genitalia objectively describes a girl. challenge.

That is the scientific definition of being a girl. It is not subject to opinion or perception. It is no less objective than claiming the Earth is round. If we all decided a square is a circle and flat means 3-dimensional, the we could say the Earth is flat. So, while the word is subjective, the definition is not. The Earth is round. Girls are born with XX chromosomes. Gender is a perception and is completely subjective. Your friend could be a boy today and a girl tomorrow per his perception. In fact, this what someone who claims to be gender fluid is saying. Being subjective is fine, but it does not alter facts.

First off, I believe you are incorrect that gender is mutable so the issue is controversial - I know I can't change my gender so I think the suggestion that someone else can is indeed debatable. But that's beside the point. The point is that you are DEFINING my friend as a girl based on his biology instead of his gender. So the issue is the definition of "girl" and definitions are mutable.

Why can't you change your gender? Isn't that the claim gender fluid people make? You are claiming the definition of a girl is mutable specifically and you are basing this on the subjective claims of individuals who have no ownership of the term which is one of science/biology. Football rules are mutable. However, you have no right to redefine offside for the NFL. Now, if the biological community wants to get together and redefine the term boy/girl, that is something else altogether, but that is not what you are describing. Rather, you are describing a group of people with mental health issues redefining a common term in order that they may feel better about themselves. However, for society at-large, such confusion and word play has almost zero positive benefit. It does offer confusion as it relates to public spaces and who has a right to use them. It puts women and men who abide by the biological meaning of the word into uncomfortable positions where they are expected to share their spaces in ways that were not intended. Earlier, I explained how tg women have sued for the right to have access to woman's shelters. You argued that biological women should be expected to share sex-specific public spaces like bathrooms with tg women. You have gone on to say, so long as the women are sufficiently fooled into believing the tg person is a woman, then there should be no cause for any sort of consternation. You have dithered on the cases where tg people who are not passable seek the same access. Are those tg people not woman enough?

In other words, in this debate, your position that my friend is girl because of his birth biology is based on nothing more than "because I say that's how the word 'girl' is defined". Sure, there are others who will agree with you on that and there are others who will disagree with you on that. But there is NO OBJECTIVE TRUTH in the matter of which definition is correct. So my friend is not objectively a girl. My friend is subjectively a girl because you have subjectively chosen to define "girl" based on biological sex instead of gender identity.

Hence the challenge that my friend is objectively a girl. So again, do not repeat that my friend is objectively a girl until you have supported that assertion.

Is your friend not, in any way, a girl? Is this your claim? Are you claiming that a biological definition of male and female do not exist? Someone's gender is their perception. Are you under any sort of responsibility to view someone else based solely on their perception? Can Elizabeth Warren positively state she is Native American since that's her perception? Can Dolezal claim she is black because that is her perception? Are Native Americans and black people being disrespectful by not acknowledging Warren's and Dolezal's perceptions of who they are? Certainly, any Native American group or black person has the right to agree with those perceptions. You are making an argument that goes beyond that. Per you, we must agree. There is no objective meaning to Native American or black. It is subjective and anyone has the right/ability to define themselves per their own perceptions, regardless of common usage, scientific terminology, etc. Certainly, you are not arguing this line of reasoning only applies to someone's sex, right?

Objective truth? No, I'm arguing the exact opposite. Whether someone is a boy or a girl is based on how one defines the words and definitions are subjective, not "truth".

Right. It's subjective and no more subjective than you perceiving him as a girl.

This is just faulty reasoning on your part. Your friend is a girl who sees himself as a boy. That is an objective statement. His biology is that of a girl. I am not offering an opinion here. That is fact assuming your story is real.

That just shows that it's best if people generally agree on definitions. It does not support that definitions are objective. I can show that your definitions are subjective by comparing them to a real objective fact.

No offense, but I feel like this is some sort of 1st year student's philosophy discussion on deconstruction. Yes, we can render all meaning meaningless and everything is subjective since we can never know the objective truth of anything and can someone pass the joint.... The words, the sounds we make from our mouths, are subjective. The things we attach those sounds to, when rooted in fact, are not subjective. Yes, we could call girls antelopes and if everyone agrees, bam! We have changed the meaning of the word antelope into a girl. But, the components of what makes a girl are not subjective. They are the scientific characteristics which allows us to define a girl separate from a boy. It isn't based on someone's perception or feelings. It is based on objective truths. However, your friend is not willing to abide by these truths because your friend's brain has an abnormality which results in a confusion between his biology and his perception of self. And, look, that's fine. For the most part, today, everyone is ok with your friend as he or she is. However, when your friend wants to use public spaces designed for boys, it is problematic in the sense that his perception is his own and no one should be expected or forced to share his perception of self. No more than we should share the perception of the naked man who believes he is wearing clothes. No more than we should share the perception of someone who believes they are Native American or black. Now, there may be times where we choose to share someone's self-perception. In personal interactions it may be simpler and it may be a willing sign of respect or whatever. That, though, is a personal choice.

For example, it's an objective fact that the world is round. That is an objective fact which, like all objective facts, is completely uninfluenced by human perception. When everyone thought the world was flat, everyone was objectively wrong and the world was still round.

But what would happen if not only I, but everyone in the world, suddenly called what you were wearing "pajamas"? Then what you are wearing would henceforth be defined as "pajamas" and the next edition of the dictionary would even have that as the definition and it would be no less incorrect to call them "pajamas" than it is to call it a "suit" today. Whether the definition is "correct" is entirely based on human perception. So the definition of "suit" is subjective. The definition of "pajama" is subjective. The definition of "boy" is subjective. The definition of "girl" is subjective.

So I think I have firmly established that no one is objectively a boy or a girl, including my friend. All definitions are subjective.

And if you disagree and still maintain that my friend is objectively a girl, please address my challenge and don't repeat that claim until you have supported it.

The fact is that I'd still be wearing pajamas, no matter what you called them. I already discussed this, so I don't think I need to repeat it here. I don't think you have really established anything. How is the word girl any different than the word round as it pertains to describing an object? Well, as far as I can tell, you have simply decided girl no longer means girl. It'd be like saying round may be either a sphere or a rectangle. The Earth would still be round, but no one would have any idea what the hell you're talking about.

I never argued that I know what women want and therefore have no need to support such a thing. I'm arguing about women feeling safe because that was what you forwarded.

As far as women feeling safer if the person who enters the restroom resembles a woman more than they resemble a man, I will appeal to common sense. OF COURSE women feel safer if they think that other person is a girl instead of a boy. Even if they are unknowingly incorrect about the other person's sex, they will still feel safer if they think it's a woman instead of a man.

So, should manly looking women, certain bull dykes, etc., be expected to use men's bathrooms? I think it is reasonable to suggest that women would feel safest when they believe their spaces are not being shared by men. So, when a man, dressed as a woman is allowed to share their space, whether it occurs or not, would seemingly make women in that space feel less safe.

But then some trans-females have transitioned and have vaginas. So do you concede that THESE people, because of their biology, should use the women's restroom.

And again, if the issue is women feeling safer, all that matters is that the person who enters the restroom doesn't make them feel unsafe. And it's not like a woman with a penis can't urinate in the ladies room. A urinal is not required.

I'd certainly think it is less controversial for a tg person who has actually had sex reassignment surgery to use the space of their chosen gender. I am not sure whether women find this safe or not.

I used "fool" because I was responding to your argument and you used it. And since you don't know, you cannot say that you could spot every transgender female in West Hollywood.

I didn't say I spotted every single one. I am saying that statistically, if I spot a lot of them and there is a very limited number in total, then there would likely be very few I missed. For example: In a population of 1000 if there are, at most 5 tg people and I spot 3 of them, then at the very most I missed 2. Whether I didn't cross their path or they fooled me is impossible to say. What I can say, is that I likely spotted most of them and it is unlikely there were very many, if any, who 'passed'. I am just making a statistical argument here.

And you know this how? Did you get a count of how many transgendered people were in the area and then subtracted those who didn't fool you from the total number and found the remaining number very small? Or do you have no idea how many transgendered people were in the area and therefore have no clue on how many fooled you and how many did not?

If you say it's the former, please support. If you can't say it's the former, then it has to be the latter.

There are ~700,000 tg people among 350M people in the U.S. So, yeah, it is pretty safe to say that in any given place, they won't number too heavily. There may be a large concentration of them in a particular spot (at a specific club for example), but then it'd be much easier to spot, wouldn't it? Just walking around or at a random bar, where there may be some tg people, it is was pretty obvious who most of them (if not all of them) were. When you see a 5' 5" bearded guy with slight hands and oddly feminine features, it is not that hard to spot. Even easier when its a 6' woman in size men's 15 pumps with an Adam's apple. And there were certainly tg people where you did a double take, but there were plenty of give-aways that, as Austin Powers would say, "That's a man, baby!"

I was under the impression that you favored laws preventing transgender women from using the women's room. But that's not your position, then I retract that notion.

But then I assume that if you would rather have the aforementioned hairy trans male with a penis use the men's room than the ladies room, you don't find it uniformly inappropriate for trans people to use the bathroom that fits their gender identity. So do you concede that, at least some of the time (like the hairy trans guy scenario) it is more appropriate for transgender people to use the room that corresponds to their gender. if not, then you do take the position that the hairy trans guy should use the ladies room?

What is it with you and the hairy trans guy? You act like just because your friend has a beard that no one knows she's a girl. People know about trans people and it is with high probability that your friend wouldn't be mistaken for a guy under any sort of real scrutiny. Maybe some would be fooled, but it isn't uniform. Some men your friend shares a public restroom with probably know exactly who she is. Others may pay no attention at all. And yet others probably have little or no idea. I have yet to meet an actual real-life tg person and after more than 30 seconds of interaction, not know that they are tg. Now, I am sure there are tg people who have had surgeries and the hormones and whose bodies are naturally the right size and who could pass even under high scrutiny, but that would be the exception, not the norm.

And beyond what someone looks like, there is the question of what someone is. I don't think women are given great comfort in knowing that only tg people who could fool them will be allowed to use a woman's space. You have kinda smuggled in this premise that women feel safe when they are in women's spaces and they don't know if everyone is a woman, but everyone looks like a woman. Somehow, I don't think this is a very legitimate statement. I think I offered this before, but if a man in drag looked sufficiently like a woman, would women feel safe with that man sharing their space? I think the answer is obvious.

[mican333]

Ignore the asterisks. I made my response in a word document that somehow added those when copied and pasted into the post.

And while I'm not going to make a more condensed version of my argument like I did last time, I am going to single out an issue and feel free to not address it when you see it repeated below.

Definitions of words (like "girl") is subjective and are distinctly different from objective facts.

An objective fact is unchanged by human perception/belief. It's an objective fact that the world is round and human thoughts cannot change that. But the definition of all words can be, and are, changed by human thoughts. This can be proved by looking at a dictionary of today and a dictionary from 100 years ago. Some of the definitions of words will be different from the two dictionaries because the definitions of words change over time. If definitions were like the shape of the world and objective, that would mean that one (or both) of the dictionaries had incorrect definitions just like two books that disagreed on the shape of the Earth would have to have at least one book being incorrect. But no dictionary is incorrect because they are accurately recording how humans define the words of their time and as definitions change, the dictionary changes. So that is ample support, if not outright proof, that the definition of words are subjective. So no definitions are objectively true and therefore no word objectively applies to anyone, including "girl".

Now until this argument is effectively rebutted, it stands and therefore the argument that my friend is objectively a girl does not stand.

And I should also note that I do not challenge that my friend is a "biological girl" so if refer to him as a "biological girl" instead of just "girl", I will not challenge that particular assertion.

That is not what I mean by 'change their gender'.* I am not specifically referring to surgery.* I am referring to all tg's in the sense that they are dressing like a different gender, may be taking hormones, attempting to use spaces intended for their non-biological gender (i.e. bathrooms or shelters).* My argument is fairly straightforward.* If someone is born X and their brain is telling them that they are really Y and this results in them taking the dramatic step of altering their appearance, hormones, or even their genitalia, then I imagine they are unhappy in their biological state.* If they weren't, then there would be no reason for them to change.* Logically, a scenario where this isn't true seems unlikely.* So, yes, you have provided a quote which claims they are not suffering from dysphoria, but I am saying this quote does not follow any sort of logic.* Therefore, the quote alone is insufficient to make your argument.

Just like they don't all seek surgery, they also don't do all of the other things you listed as well.* Some of them seem very undramatic to me.* I mean we all dress in ways that we like.* So is it a big deal if someone who is biologically a boy feels better if they are dressed as a girl because they identify as a girl?* I don't think so.* If you think it is a big deal and it indicates the level of distress that is clinically referred to in the descriptors of dysphoria, I say that you are dead wrong in that assumption and you will need to provide some real support before I will accept that.

I mean practically everyone experiences some level of distress but it's not a clinical problem until it reaches a certain level.* An overweight person may diet and exercise to fight obesity and yes, they are technically distressed because they are overweight, but THAT is not a symptom of an actual disorder.* And neither is choosing to dress differently than your biological sex because you don't like dressing in accordance to it. *

So you have provided nothing that counters the support that I provided.* If you think dressing differently is a sign of a clinical disorder, your opinion is noted.

You are shifting the burden. You asserted that my analogy of someone who thinks they are invisible, walking naked in public is erroneous.* You claimed there are obvious reasons for outlawing nudity in public. I am asking you to define what those reasons may be.

First off, I did not claim that your analogy is erroneous. I just answered the questions you asked. And then I answered another question. And now I'm suppose to answer yet another? I decline.

If you have a point regarding this analogy, then make it.

I assume the point is that we should not allow people to break the laws that everyone else has to follow because they are violating it because they have a delusion. So that I respond that I never argued that they should.

And NOW I argue that the analogy is erroneous because I reject the premise that transgendered people are delusional and because unlike public nudity, I do not consider it particularly inappropriate for a transgender person to use the restroom that corresponds to his/her gender identity.

That is the scientific definition of being a girl.* It is not subject to opinion or perception.* It is no less objective than claiming the Earth is round.* If we all decided a square is a circle and flat means 3-dimensional, the we could say the Earth is flat.* So, while the word is subjective, the definition is not.* The Earth is round.* Girls are born with XX chromosomes.* Gender is a perception and is completely subjective.* Your friend could be a boy today and a girl tomorrow per his perception.* In fact, this what someone who claims to be gender fluid is saying.* Being subjective is fine, but it does not alter facts.

So what would happen if the scientific community decided the define "girl" by gender identity instead of biology? What would happen is that the scientific definition of "girl" would then be based on gender identity instead of biology.

And what would happen if the scientists decided that the world was flat? They would be wrong.

That is the difference between subjective and objective.* The shape of the world is objective.* The definition of words, including scientific definitions, is entirely based on human perception.

So no, it's not an objective fact that a "girl" has XX chromosomes. It’s pure human choice to define “girl” that way wherever people choose to define it that way. And therefore that definition, as well as all definitions, are subjective not objective.

Why can't you change your gender?* Isn't that the claim gender fluid people make?

I don't think so.* Gender fluid is defined as having no fixed gender which seems different than changing from one gender to another.* And even if you want to define gender fluid people as being able to change, the rest of us - you, me, and my trans male friend - are not gender fluid and therefore cannot change our gender.* Or do you argue that you can change your gender?* Assuming you don't argue that, then you must concede that at least most people can't do it.

You are claiming the definition of a girl is mutable specifically and you are basing this on the subjective claims of individuals who have no ownership of the term which is one of science/biology.* Football rules are mutable.* However, you have no right to redefine offside for the NFL.

And that's because others have a greater right to set the rules of NFL football than I do. But I have just as much right to alter language as anyone else (and language does change over time).

Now, if the biological community wants to get together and redefine the term boy/girl, that is something else altogether, but that is not what you are describing.* Rather, you are describing a group of people with mental health issues redefining a common term in order that they may feel better about themselves.

Smuggling the premise that they all have mental health issues.

However, for society at-large, such confusion and word play has almost zero positive benefit.* It does offer confusion as it relates to public spaces and who has a right to use them.* It puts women and men who abide by the biological meaning of the word into uncomfortable positions where they are expected to share their spaces in ways that were not intended.* Earlier, I explained how tg women have sued for the right to have access to woman's shelters.* You argued that biological women should be expected to share sex-specific public spaces like bathrooms with tg women.* You have gone on to say, so long as the women are sufficiently fooled into believing the tg person is a woman, then there should be no cause for any sort of consternation.* You have dithered on the cases where tg people who are not passable seek the same access.* Are those tg people not woman enough?

The controversies and confusions regarding transgender people is not primarily caused by whether we call boys and girls.* It's caused by their very existence.* The issue with, say, the shelters is NOT about them being called "women" but by the discomfort some women may feel with a biological male sharing the shelter.* So this does not equate much of an argument for not verbally identifying them by their gender identity. *

And referring to them by their gender identity does have a positive effect on society. All else being equal, whatever is best for any particular person is what’s best for society (unless doing things for their benefit causes greater harm to others than what benefits them). And not only do I think it's a moral positive to treat others with respect when I can, it’s also good for society for everyone to treat each other which as much respect as possible. And as I believe I’ve supported, its respectful to transgender people to refer to them by their gender if that’s what they want.

You can justifiably point to controversies and confusion created by transgender people existing with our society and letting themselves be seen. But then the question becomes what is to be done about it and there are likely no solutions that’s going to completely satisfy everyone so the correct solution is the “best” one, not the “perfect one” (for the perfect one doesn’t exist).

And each issue raised should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.

You mentioned shelters. Given the scenario you presented, I think it might make sense to keep trans wonen out of shelters if women who are already there object to them.

And bathrooms are a different issue. And again, there are no perfect solutions but I can think of no better solution than letting trans people use the bathroom of their choice and as far as I can tell, you have not forwarded a better alternative to what I forward. So even if letting them use the bathroom of their choice may cause some awkwardness sometimes, unless a better solution is forwarded, that’s the still the best option. So do you have a better option to suggest? If so, what is it? If not, then this issue is settled.

Is your friend not, in any way, a girl?* Is this your claim?* Are you claiming that a biological definition of male and female do not exist?* Someone's gender is their perception.* Are you under any sort of responsibility to view someone else based solely on their perception?* Can Elizabeth Warren positively state she is Native American since that's her perception?* Can Dolezal claim she is black because that is her perception?* Are Native Americans and black people being disrespectful by not acknowledging Warren's and Dolezal's perceptions of who they are?* Certainly, any Native American group or black person has the right to agree with those perceptions.* You are making an argument that goes beyond that.* Per you, we must agree.* There is no objective meaning to Native American or black.* It is subjective and anyone has the right/ability to define themselves per their own perceptions, regardless of common usage, scientific terminology, etc.* Certainly, you are not arguing this line of reasoning only applies to someone's sex, right?

It’s not my line of reasoning. You are essentially attacking a straw man.

To state MY reasoning. I recognize my friend is biologically a female and identifies as a male. So I have the option of referring to him by his biological sex or his gender. I choose to identify him by his gender because I know he wants me to do that and there is no good reason for me to not do that. I also thisnk in all relevant legal issues where his biological sex is not at issue (which means pretty much everything outside of medical situations), he should be considered male as well.

As far as someone saying they are of a certain race, whether I likewise respect that depends on a variety of issues so I can’t say that I would respect such a thing as a matter of course. It would be very much situational.

This is just faulty reasoning on your part.* Your friend is a girl who sees himself as a boy.* That is an objective statement.* His biology is that of a girl.* I am not offering an opinion here.* That is fact assuming your story is real.

It is not objectively true that he is a girl. From my perspective, I have soundly defeated that premise by proving that all definitions are subjective. Maybe you still consider the issue debatable but either way, the premise is not accepted.

If you mean that it’s an objective fact that he is biologically female and identifies as male, I agree. But it’s a subjective choice on both of our parts to identify him as a boy or a girl because it’s a subjective choice to use his biology or his gender when referring to him as a boy or a girl.

No offense, but I feel like this is some sort of 1st year student's philosophy discussion on deconstruction.* Yes, we can render all meaning meaningless and everything is subjective since we can never know the objective truth of anything and can someone pass the joint....* The words, the sounds we make from our mouths, are subjective.* The things we attach those sounds to, when rooted in fact, are not subjective.* Yes, we could call girls antelopes and if everyone agrees, bam!* We have changed the meaning of the word antelope into a girl.* But, the components of what makes a girl are not subjective.

I you to SUPPORT OR RETRACT your claim that the components of what makes a girl are not subjective.

They are the scientific characteristics which allows us to define a girl separate from a boy.* It isn't based on someone's perception or feelings.* It is based on objective truths.* However, your friend is not willing to abide by these truths because your friend's brain has an abnormality which results in a confusion between his biology and his perception of self.

Name ONE objective fact that my friend denies or doesn’t understand.

However, when your friend wants to use public spaces designed for boys, it is problematic in the sense that his perception is his own and no one should be expected or forced to share his perception of self.* No more than we should share the perception of the naked man who believes he is wearing clothes.* No more than we should share the perception of someone who believes they are Native American or black.* Now, there may be times where we choose to share someone's self-perception.* In personal interactions it may be simpler and it may be a willing sign of respect or whatever.* That, though, is a personal choice.

So what is your alternative solution for when my friend wants to use the restroom? Again, he looks like a guy and if he walks into the girl’s room, those girls are going to think that a guy walked into their restroom.

So given that, what do you suggest the policy regarding bathrooms be for people like him? I forward that since he will cause less discomfort if he uses the room that he wants to use, the men’s room, he should be allowed to use that room if he wants. If you aren’t going to argue for a different policy, then I think this issue is settled.

The fact is that I'd still be wearing pajamas, no matter what you called them.

No, it's not a fact that you would still be wearing pajamas.

I mean let's say that a guy says to you "nice suit" and you say 'No, they are pajamas" and an debate ensues.

If EITHER of you is objectively correct, then it would be theoretically possible for one of you to prove that the other person is wrong. But of course neither of you could prove the other person wrong and therefore neither of you is objectively correct and therefore it is not fact that you are wearing pajamas or a suit.

If you disagree, then please tell me how you can prove that you are wearing pajamas.

I already discussed this, so I don't think I need to repeat it here.* I don't think you have really established anything.* How is the word girl any different than the word round as it pertains to describing an object?

Because the definition of word “girl” can change by human thought (everyone thinks the word ‘girl” means something else and then it does mean something else. But if everyone thought the world was flat, it wouldn't change the world at all - it would still be round.

Doesn’t that establish that definitions are subjective (can be changed by human thought) and therefore are not objective (for objective facts cannot be changed by thought)? Yes or no. If not, why not?

So, should manly looking women, certain bull dykes, etc., be expected to use men's bathrooms?* I think it is reasonable to suggest that women would feel safest when they believe their spaces are not being shared by men.* So, when a man, dressed as a woman is allowed to share their space, whether it occurs or not, would seemingly make women in that space feel less safe.

So what is your proposal? Again, I’m not saying my solution is perfect, just the best one. If you disagree, propose something you think is better and we can debate this. Otherwise, this issue is settled.

I didn't say I spotted every single one.* I am saying that statistically, if I spot a lot of them and there is a very limited number in total, then there would likely be very few I missed.* For example: *In a population of 1000 if there are, at most 5 tg people and I spot 3 of them, then at the very most I missed 2.* Whether I didn't cross their path or they fooled me is impossible to say.* What I can say, is that I likely spotted most of them and it is unlikely there were very many, if any, who 'passed'.* I am just making a statistical argument here.

Either way, your evidence is purely anecdotal.

You will need something a bit stronger to support that any percentage of tg people will or will not pass.

There are ~700,000 tg people among 350M people in the U.S.* So, yeah, it is pretty safe to say that in any given place, they won't number too heavily.* There may be a large concentration of them in a particular spot (at a specific club for example), but then it'd be much easier to spot, wouldn't it?* Just walking around or at a random bar, where there may be some tg people, it is was pretty obvious who most of them (if not all of them) were.* When you see a 5' 5" bearded guy with slight hands and oddly feminine features, it is not that hard to spot.* Even easier when its a 6' woman in size men's 15 pumps with an Adam's apple.* And there were certainly tg people where you did a double take, but there were plenty of give-aways that, as Austin Powers would say, "That's a man, baby!”

And I’ve seen photos of tg people that definitely look like their gender. My friend would certainly pass for a short guy. And I’ve seen certain people who are so androgynous I could not tell which gender they were.

So there's my anecdotal evidence.

And beyond what someone looks like, there is the question of what someone is.* I don't think women are given great comfort in knowing that only tg people who could fool them will be allowed to use a woman's space.* You have kinda smuggled in this premise that women feel safe when they are in women's spaces and they don't know if everyone is a woman, but everyone looks like a woman.* Somehow, I don't think this is a very legitimate statement.* I think I offered this before, but if a man in drag looked sufficiently like a woman, would women feel safe with that man sharing their space?* I think the answer is obvious.

I would think that a man in drag who knows that he looks like a man in drag is not going to use the ladies room.

As I’ve said, and you’ve NEVER rebutted (as far as I know), people will use the bathroom that causes the least discomfort in others. So even a trans guy who thinks he looks more like a girl than a guy is more likely to use the girls room if given the choice.

You raise these issues but you have not made a coherent argument for any alternative to what I propose.