LGBT - Accepting the Rainbow

Old Mare Yells At Cloud. (News, Events, Philosophy)
Soft Snow
User avatar
Posts: 103
Joined: Mon Oct 30, 2017 11:52 pm

LGBT - Accepting the Rainbow

Post by Soft Snow (?) » Tue Nov 14, 2017 1:44 am

Danica Roem becomes first transgender woman to win a state seat.
:saycheese:

She ousted 73-year-old Republican Robert G. Marshall. Marshall was known for this anti-gay statements and open opposition to the LGBT community. These were polar opposite candidates facing off and the results were historical. Hopefully this marks a turning point for acceptance in our country.
Image
If I had a bit for every time you made me feel worthless I'd be worth something by now.

Mr. Big
User avatar
Open yourself to the Garfield option.
Rarity's Roughnecks
Posts: 903
Joined: Mon Oct 30, 2017 11:00 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Tennessee
Contact:

Re: LGBT - Accepting the Rainbow

Post by Mr. Big (?) » Tue Nov 14, 2017 2:04 am

This is why I sometimes believe in karma :lol:

Although I have to make a note. Technically, Danica Roem isn't the first transgender woman to win a state seat. Snopes has more. Not to lessen Roem's impact, though, which is historical on its own right.

Auxiliatrix
User avatar
Posts: 66
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:57 pm
Gender: Female

Re: LGBT - Accepting the Rainbow

Post by Auxiliatrix (?) » Tue Nov 21, 2017 8:53 pm

Soft Snow wrote: ↑
Tue Nov 14, 2017 1:44 am
Danica Roem becomes first transgender woman to win a state seat.
:saycheese:

She ousted 73-year-old Republican Robert G. Marshall. Marshall was known for this anti-gay statements and open opposition to the LGBT community. These were polar opposite candidates facing off and the results were historical. Hopefully this marks a turning point for acceptance in our country.
This is such amazing news! Thank you for telling me about this, because normally I don't even follow politics! :-I
Image

Life in one image. Interpret as you wish.

Erythema
User avatar
Posts: 62
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2018 10:13 am

Re: LGBT - Accepting the Rainbow

Post by Erythema (?) » Tue Feb 13, 2018 12:12 pm

Hi. I'd like to ask some questions about the Trans part of LGBT. Right now, my understanding of Trans people begins and ends with this.

First question is about "transgender" vs "transsexual." Is there agreement on the explanation given here? If so, wouldn't it be more constructive to distinguish the two cases? Using the term "trans" lumps the two things together, to my understanding.

Perrydotto
User avatar
Agents of Chaos
Posts: 1268
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2017 6:20 am
Gender: Female
Location: The Final Frontier

Re: LGBT - Accepting the Rainbow

Post by Perrydotto (?) » Tue Feb 13, 2018 1:09 pm

To my knowledge, transsexual is just largely treated as an obsolete term for the same things transgender means to express. I'm not trans myself, though, and not an expert, just going off of what I know.
Image /// Image /// Image

West Filly
User avatar
Stare Masters
Posts: 767
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2017 6:46 am
Gender: Male

Re: LGBT - Accepting the Rainbow

Post by West Filly (?) » Tue Feb 13, 2018 7:50 pm

Reading that, I feel like the poison of biotruths is starting to leak into the discourse about trans people.
πŸ‘‰πŸ‘‰πŸ₯œπŸ 

West Filly
User avatar
Stare Masters
Posts: 767
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2017 6:46 am
Gender: Male

Re: LGBT - Accepting the Rainbow

Post by West Filly (?) » Tue Feb 13, 2018 8:07 pm

I'm going to say the same thing from another angle. I don't think understanding the brain science is as important as understanding one another in a human sense. Something strikes me as unsettling about this apparent clamoring in the media to find some kind of congenital and physiological cause for phenomena like gender and sexual identity. I'm not saying it discredits or disproves the science, because science is science I won't argue what it comes out with. I'm saying that a fully fleshed biological understanding of a phenomenon ought not to be prerequisite to simple things like calling someone a name they want to be called, using pronouns, letting live as it were. I worry when I see this kind of writing. It feels to me that people are trying to use the science to defend someone's right to exist when the right to exist should be of itself. Instead of understanding a person on a human level or in terms of their experience at least, it feels like there's a push to create a cookie cutter understanding that every trans person has to fit inside of - ur brain is different therefore u r thing.

I could be wrong here. Maybe someone will join the forums saying "I discovered I was transsexual when I had my brain MRI scanned and found that it was neurotypical of the opposed sex"

Also my limited understanding of neuroscience would have it that the shape of the brain literally changes with someone's experiences and activities. All in all it just seems to me that putting the shape of the brain before the experience of a person puts the cart before the horse.
πŸ‘‰πŸ‘‰πŸ₯œπŸ 

Erythema
User avatar
Posts: 62
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2018 10:13 am

Re: LGBT - Accepting the Rainbow

Post by Erythema (?) » Tue Feb 13, 2018 8:37 pm

West Filly wrote: ↑
Tue Feb 13, 2018 8:07 pm
I'm going to say the same thing from another angle. I don't think understanding the brain science is as important as understanding one another in a human sense. Something strikes me as unsettling about this apparent clamoring in the media to find some kind of congenital and physiological cause for phenomena like gender and sexual identity. I'm not saying it discredits or disproves the science, because science is science I won't argue what it comes out with. I'm saying that a fully fleshed biological understanding of a phenomenon ought not to be prerequisite to simple things like calling someone a name they want to be called, using pronouns, letting live as it were. I worry when I see this kind of writing. It feels to me that people are trying to use the science to defend someone's right to exist when the right to exist should be of itself.
I understand what you're saying but let's face it, that is simply not going to win any legitimacy. When advocating for anything, it's important to have firm ground to stand on. If the idea is to expand the boundaries of acceptance, it is important to make sure the new lines are easily defended from ideologues and demagogues who want none of it. They will look for any hook to clinch the argument so it'll be important to not leave any low-hanging fruits. As the newly-drawn boundaries stand the test of time, they start to become the new normal. This would be the best time to look for new solid ground to extend the new boundaries towards.

So really, if the argument isn't heavily fortified enough, contrarians have a good opportunity to undo your work. Sure, an unconditional right to exist sounds lovely and all but getting there just cannot be rushed. If you recklessly draw the boundaries without any means of defending the boundaries, they're just going to get reclaimed, resulting in lost time and energy.

All said, what all of this seems to come back to is that a person should be free to choose what to make of oneself in their life as an individual regardless of what gametes they produce. To make the case more compelling, it has to be proven that men and women can be happy and lead fulfilling lives while leading lifestyles far outside defined gender norms. Sounds like a good strategy?

West Filly
User avatar
Stare Masters
Posts: 767
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2017 6:46 am
Gender: Male

Re: LGBT - Accepting the Rainbow

Post by West Filly (?) » Wed Feb 14, 2018 2:11 am

Since when did Ideologues listen to science? :lol:

Besides, there's the whole "is / ought gap". Just because that's how a brain is doesn't tell us how we ought to be about it. If someone finds that there's a brain pattern to underpin this, what do we use to decide that this pattern isn't something that needs treatment or resistence as opposed to just accepting a person for who they are? It's obvious to us that we just accept someone, but your ideologue might use this to say "trans people have broken brains, they need to be fixed."

There is some science that, contrary to the usual is / ought problem, does give some suggestion for how someone "should" act. Psychology has got decades worth of records on how trans people have better outcomes when able to present and be thought of as the gender they feel they are. Particularly by contrast with trying to treat someone against that, which is an unfortunate thing psychologists have tried to do.
πŸ‘‰πŸ‘‰πŸ₯œπŸ 

Dexanth
User avatar
Celestia's Champions
Posts: 136
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2017 12:50 pm
Gender: Female

Re: LGBT - Accepting the Rainbow

Post by Dexanth (?) » Sun Feb 18, 2018 2:09 am

Erythema wrote: ↑
Tue Feb 13, 2018 8:37 pm
I understand what you're saying but let's face it, that is simply not going to win any legitimacy. When advocating for anything, it's important to have firm ground to stand on. If the idea is to expand the boundaries of acceptance, it is important to make sure the new lines are easily defended from ideologues and demagogues who want none of it. They will look for any hook to clinch the argument so it'll be important to not leave any low-hanging fruits. As the newly-drawn boundaries stand the test of time, they start to become the new normal. This would be the best time to look for new solid ground to extend the new boundaries towards.
Like, bluntly, we kind of made a ton of progress without that, because enough of us stood up and said 'This is who we are and we are done hiding' that eventually for a sufficient critical mass, that was evidence enough.

At some point, perhaps we'll have an exact understanding of where the perfect 'line' is, but given we exist on a gender spectrum with people not conforming all over the place it's likely we're going to see a multi-peaked distribution graph which, y'know, is totally fine.

But nah. I don't have to prove myself to demagogues out to deny my identity in any way I can. I just need to convince enough people that I can safely live my life the way I want to, and while we're not fully there yet, we're way closer.

As for 'Has to be proven', it like...already is proven? Because, you know, there are millions of us out there already doing just that.

Octavia
User avatar
Octavia's Orchestra
Patreon supporter
Posts: 1313
Joined: Mon Oct 30, 2017 11:59 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Chicago, IL
Contact:

Re: LGBT - Accepting the Rainbow

Post by Octavia (?) » Sun Feb 25, 2018 3:54 pm

A transgender high school wrestler in Texas repeatedly requested to wrestle on the boys' team, but was forced to wrestle with the girls because of a 2016 Texas law that requires athletes to compete under the gender on their birth certificate. He ended up winning the state title and was booed by the crowd. :unenthused:
ImageImageImageImageImage

Jill
User avatar
boo :3
Special Flowers
Posts: 378
Joined: Mon Oct 30, 2017 10:59 pm
Gender: Female
Contact:

Re: LGBT - Accepting the Rainbow

Post by Jill (?) » Sun Feb 25, 2018 5:32 pm

Octavia wrote: ↑
Sun Feb 25, 2018 3:54 pm
A transgender high school wrestler in Texas repeatedly requested to wrestle on the boys' team, but was forced to wrestle with the girls because of a 2016 Texas law that requires athletes to compete under the gender on their birth certificate. He ended up winning the state title and was booed by the crowd. :unenthused:
i'd say something like "these bigots reap what they sow" but i'm actually surprised they let him compete at all instead of just saying he's disqualified from either division because he was born female but took a performance-enhancing drug

Mir
User avatar
Apple Artisans
Posts: 47
Joined: Mon Oct 30, 2017 11:03 pm
Gender: Female

Re: LGBT - Accepting the Rainbow

Post by Mir (?) » Sun Feb 25, 2018 7:51 pm

It's really kinda terrible, because it IS unfair to the girls that had to wrestle him, but it's absolutely not his fault.
The law in question was put in place during the whole bathroom bill kneejerk reaction and as usual, the people in question were trying to target trans women and in the process completely forgot that trans men exist.

Perrydotto
User avatar
Agents of Chaos
Posts: 1268
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2017 6:20 am
Gender: Female
Location: The Final Frontier

Re: LGBT - Accepting the Rainbow

Post by Perrydotto (?) » Mon Mar 19, 2018 7:18 pm

On Mike Pence and his very gross anti-LGBT stances:



and here you can buy the adorable bunny book that is about two boy bunnies in love and hopefully delivers a bit of a screw you to Mike Pence: https://www.betterbundobook.com/

All proceeds go to the Trevor Project and AIDS United.
Image /// Image /// Image

Octavia
User avatar
Octavia's Orchestra
Patreon supporter
Posts: 1313
Joined: Mon Oct 30, 2017 11:59 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Chicago, IL
Contact:

Re: LGBT - Accepting the Rainbow

Post by Octavia (?) » Tue Mar 20, 2018 10:35 am

I watch every segment of Last Week Tonight they put up on YouTube religiously, and this episode is one of the best in a long time. :awesomedash:

It's also outselling Pence's book
ImageImageImageImageImage

Perrydotto
User avatar
Agents of Chaos
Posts: 1268
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2017 6:20 am
Gender: Female
Location: The Final Frontier

Re: LGBT - Accepting the Rainbow

Post by Perrydotto (?) » Tue Mar 20, 2018 6:49 pm

I already ordered my copy. I went for the physical version and it'll take like 4 weeks to be shipped because they're so backordered. Hah :yay:
Image /// Image /// Image

Perrydotto
User avatar
Agents of Chaos
Posts: 1268
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2017 6:20 am
Gender: Female
Location: The Final Frontier

Re: LGBT - Accepting the Rainbow

Post by Perrydotto (?) » Mon Apr 16, 2018 5:41 am







When you are so terrible at your job, you even mess up ruining people's lives, at least this time. :allears:
Image /// Image /// Image

Erythema
User avatar
Posts: 62
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2018 10:13 am

Re: LGBT - Accepting the Rainbow

Post by Erythema (?) » Wed Apr 18, 2018 6:09 pm

There's something about the trans ban that puzzles me. I just can't imagine why anyone in a marginalized group would even consider risking their lives for a country that sees them as sub-human. I would have thought that trans people in the US would shrug this off and rhetorically ask themselves why they would join the military of such a country in the first place. Obviously the country looks down on them so why put one's life on the line for that very same country?

Does this all simply come down to not losing any ground on the human rights front?

West Filly
User avatar
Stare Masters
Posts: 767
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2017 6:46 am
Gender: Male

Re: LGBT - Accepting the Rainbow

Post by West Filly (?) » Wed Apr 18, 2018 6:20 pm

Is it possible that the ban is an attempt to have the government come to a compromise where they restore DADT or have some likewise form of "just make them invisible" policy?

Of course it doesn't work for trans people. Unless passing for their true gender, or acting in a gender they were forced upon in childhood, a trans person wears their identity visibly.
πŸ‘‰πŸ‘‰πŸ₯œπŸ 

Mir
User avatar
Apple Artisans
Posts: 47
Joined: Mon Oct 30, 2017 11:03 pm
Gender: Female

Re: LGBT - Accepting the Rainbow

Post by Mir (?) » Wed Apr 18, 2018 8:41 pm

There are undoubtedly thousands of trans people already in the the military so asking why they would join in the first place kinda misses the point. They join for the same reasons anyone joins the military. And many of them may not even realize they're trans until after they've already joined.

Erythema
User avatar
Posts: 62
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2018 10:13 am

Re: LGBT - Accepting the Rainbow

Post by Erythema (?) » Thu Apr 19, 2018 7:32 am

Mir wrote: ↑
Wed Apr 18, 2018 8:41 pm
There are undoubtedly thousands of trans people already in the the military so asking why they would join in the first place kinda misses the point. They join for the same reasons anyone joins the military. And many of them may not even realize they're trans until after they've already joined.
Wouldn't they have second thoughts about continuing to serve? Why choose to serve a military that doesn't respect them? Why choose to serve a country that doesn't respect them on their merits?

Mir
User avatar
Apple Artisans
Posts: 47
Joined: Mon Oct 30, 2017 11:03 pm
Gender: Female

Re: LGBT - Accepting the Rainbow

Post by Mir (?) » Thu Apr 19, 2018 4:21 pm

I suspect very, very, few people join the military to "serve their country".
At least in the US people join because they'll pay for your college education, because they'll pay for medical expenses, or train you specifically in a marketable trade so you'll have future when you get out, because they're poor and don't see any other choice or opportunity, because they need to support themselves, because their family needs the money, because their young and impressionable and preyed upon by high school recruiters.

You kick trans people out of the military and you're ripping all that away from them, which is sorta horrendous discrimination that will destroy lives? I'm not a fan of the military, but yeah, let's just let them destroy the livelihoods of literally thousands of people who serve the country and take away their future because "eww trans."

West Filly
User avatar
Stare Masters
Posts: 767
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2017 6:46 am
Gender: Male

Re: LGBT - Accepting the Rainbow

Post by West Filly (?) » Thu Apr 19, 2018 5:08 pm

My dad was in the RAF. The schools I went to were full of children of serving forces personnel. We'd all hear stories of all the wonderful things our parents had done while serving: the friendships they had made, the excursions they went on, the shenanigans they got up to behind the backs of their superiors. The thing that appealed to me was the awe inspiring aircraft they got to see on a daily basis. There were machines that can break the sound barrier carrying high explosives, and the people around me got to be a part of that.

I remember looking up to military personnel as I was growing up. Most of the adults around me, men and women, wore that uniform. On each uniform they'd wear their rank. My dad was a Sergeant, and that meant something. It meant something to strangers who didn't even know him. It meant so much more to those who did. I remember how ecstatic he was when he was promoted to Sergeant. He wasn't just there to make money or stick his family in a government supplied house. He had bettered himself over decades of service. He had been recognised for his hard work, and he was now able to wear that achievement on his shoulder every day. How many workplaces can really offer this kind of progression to any employee, let alone one who had no skills or qualifications at the start?

I want to spit it back. Why would being trans make you not want that? Not want to be part of the forces family, see the world, make life long friends, earn prestige and be a part of industries you might not get a better opportunity to be a part of?

Even if we were to look at this from the perspective that trans people are mistreated in our nations, the country isn't one single monolith who you can begrudge the same as a person. Yes people and politicians might spit on your identity but your home soil might still be something you're proud of. I think pitting people of one identity against another identity can really tear up those who strongly identify as both. I just really want to say you can be Trans and a proud American regardless of what's going on. Don't let anyone on the right or the left tell you you can't love America if you're Trans. You shouldn't have to defend one identity while having to apologise for another. Of course, the ideal solution would be one where America wasn't such a shit to trans people, but even without that you can still love something even if its got some behaviours you don't like.

If a trans person joins because they want to defend America, Britain or wherever, I see no contradiction. I see someone who has a lot to be proud of.
πŸ‘‰πŸ‘‰πŸ₯œπŸ 

CorvusCaw
User avatar
Maud Squad
Posts: 155
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2017 10:39 pm
Gender: Female

Re: LGBT - Accepting the Rainbow

Post by CorvusCaw (?) » Sun Apr 22, 2018 4:02 pm

There are countless lies and deception used by American military recruiters to coax enlistments. Trans people are not immune from them just because they are trans. Regardless of your opinion about the U.S. military and trans service in it, specifically targeting and blocking them from enlisting is a civil rights violation and must be fought as vigorously as any other violation. If they can say trans people aren't allowed to serve in the military, it's a step away from taking me out of the classroom.
ImageImageImageImageImage

Erythema
User avatar
Posts: 62
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2018 10:13 am

Re: LGBT - Accepting the Rainbow

Post by Erythema (?) » Fri May 04, 2018 8:46 pm

So, I've been thinking about the whole debate about trans people, what they are, what they are not. The argument that it's hard-coded in a person's cerebral anatomy has been looking fruitful, especially against those who see it as nothing but a psychiatric disorder. I even managed to convince a right-wing (Icelander) friend about it. Apparently when the line is drawn at trans people being uncomfortable in their own bodies because of a mismatch between the person's sex and sexual dimorphism in the brain (more specifically, a specific region of the brain called the bed nucleus of the tria terminalis), there isn't a real hook to take it down.

The reason why this is so promising is that it's a low-hanging fruit to carve a space for trans people. These trans people with the mismatching cerebral sexual dimorphism are just the people who are in most need of acceptance and integration.

However, I also realize what the challenges are for the hard-liners. The implication is clear: not everyone is suitable to transition -- in fact, only a very small minority of people have this condition. It also ignores if not rejects the philosophy that gender is a social construct (I'm admittedly still a little confused on that subject matter), since it boils everything down to hard biology. That of course means two things:
1) Because it's rooted in one's cerebral anatomy, these people cannot help that they're trans. They did not choose this.
2) Because it's rooted in one's cerebral anatomy, you're either trans or you're not. It also means that people who aren't trans should avoid transitioning altogether as they might find themselves wanting to reverse the process. If a trans person regrets going through the process and wants to go back, this is almost certain to be the reason.

IMO, trans people badly need help in society and I believe it to be imperative to carve out space for them. They did not choose to be trans so why not carve out a secure space for them post-haste? They are in dire need of it and their needs should come first. The fact that it doesn't rely on the philosophy of gender being a social construct makes it that much easier to defend. That philosophy has been having a difficult time proliferating by the looks of it, which makes it that much more essential to make this compromise.

West Filly
User avatar
Stare Masters
Posts: 767
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2017 6:46 am
Gender: Male

Re: LGBT - Accepting the Rainbow

Post by West Filly (?) » Fri May 04, 2018 9:43 pm

You're seeking to define trans people by a specific condition of the brain rather than the reported prolonged experience of dysphoria?

Medically, the experience of dysphoria has already been enough for a medical pathway to be carved out. It's already enough for doctors to feel comfortable in offering informed choices to their patients. The issue isn't the medical definition, but the intervention of politicians in access to those pathways. Altering the medical pathway just to make it more palatable to politicians seems a step backward rather than a step forward.
πŸ‘‰πŸ‘‰πŸ₯œπŸ 

Perrydotto
User avatar
Agents of Chaos
Posts: 1268
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2017 6:20 am
Gender: Female
Location: The Final Frontier

Re: LGBT - Accepting the Rainbow

Post by Perrydotto (?) » Fri May 04, 2018 9:49 pm

IMO, trans people badly need help in society and I believe it to be imperative to carve out space for them. They did not choose to be trans so why not carve out a secure space for them post-haste? They are in dire need of it and their needs should come first. The fact that it doesn't rely on the philosophy of gender being a social construct makes it that much easier to defend. That philosophy has been having a difficult time proliferating by the looks of it, which makes it that much more essential to make this compromise.
I don't see how those two things are mutually exclusive, though? The way we express, treat, etc. one's gender is very much a social construct. Nothing in nature tells us that women wear dresses and men shouldn't, that women can't be good at math, etc. - That doesn't mean that whatever brain stuff might be involved in being trans goes against that. Likely a multitude of factors are involved, and even if it can be conclusively proven that brain thing XYZ contributes to being trans, it extremely likely couldn't be narrowed down to be the only cause. It would just be very reductive and harmful to suggest that you need to have brain thing XYZ to be an "acceptable" trans person. All sorts of sexes and genders without clear lines drawn are already a thing - Intersex people exist, different cultures around the world have drawn the lines between genders and different gender identities in ways that differ from the Western world. Gender is and always has been a constantly changing experience. I really, really doubt it can be as simple as "you either have brain thing XYZ and are trans, or you don't and are not trans". Brains and psychology are never that simple.

Also, if you got sources for this research and what the current status of it is, that'd be great.
Image /// Image /// Image

Erythema
User avatar
Posts: 62
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2018 10:13 am

Re: LGBT - Accepting the Rainbow

Post by Erythema (?) » Fri May 04, 2018 10:22 pm

Perrydotto wrote: ↑
Fri May 04, 2018 9:49 pm
Also, if you got sources for this research and what the current status of it is, that'd be great.
Will do. This video explains it in a nutshell


As for sources, here's what I'm finding:
A sex difference in the human brain and its relation to transsexuality
Regional gray matter variation in male-to-female transsexualism
Male-to-Female Transsexuals Have Female Neuron Numbers in a Limbic Nucleus (Free!)

I'm afraid I've got too much on my plate for tonight to give more in this post. Hopefully I'll get to that tomorrow night. Hopefully what I've given in this post is just enough to keep the conversation going for the time being.

West Filly
User avatar
Stare Masters
Posts: 767
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2017 6:46 am
Gender: Male

Re: LGBT - Accepting the Rainbow

Post by West Filly (?) » Fri May 04, 2018 11:33 pm

The research is interesting and I'm not questioning its findings. I'm not qualified for that.

I'm questioning the idea that the onus should be on trans people to have an indisputable biological reason to exist rather than the onus being on ordinary people to not be butts, particularly people who can make decisions that'll impact on the lives of trans people. Why should trans people have to prove that there's a good reason to have a place in this world when for most else it's just a given?

Also, to completely misuse this phrase: knowing is half the battle. Just because someone knows that doctors could, say, prevent diseases using a certain newly found genetic procedure, doesn't mean they agree that it ought to happen. That's the case no matter how obvious it would seem to use this knowledge. If it were widely known and accepted that the size of a part of the brain effectively indicates your feelings about your gender, and that such is immutable, it still doesn't tell someone in indisputable terms how to act when a trans person is in front of them. That's the case no matter how obvious it is to us that you act in accordance with their gender identity.

As stupid as it would seem, even with this new understanding people could still say "well even if your brain is a certain way that doesn't mean we ought to let you in the womens' restroom". They'd be morally wrong in what they're suggesting, but they wouldn't be scientifically inaccurate. That's why I want the onus to be on "don't be a butt" not "prove this thing exists". And where is it that people find their morals? It's society. It's the people around them, the things they read, and the experiences they live inside of the society which may shape that experience.

I agree that these findings may act to win people over, but I don't agree that this needs to come at the expense of pressing the angle of societal norms. The societal side of this has much more of an impact on signalling to people how to act to one another in ordinary situation than science ever can.
πŸ‘‰πŸ‘‰πŸ₯œπŸ 

Mr. Big
User avatar
Open yourself to the Garfield option.
Rarity's Roughnecks
Posts: 903
Joined: Mon Oct 30, 2017 11:00 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Tennessee
Contact:

Re: LGBT - Accepting the Rainbow

Post by Mr. Big (?) » Sat May 05, 2018 4:59 pm

I dunno if these polls mean anything to people here, but 44 US states now have majority support for gay marriage.

My state is one of the 6 that doesn't have majority support :-I although Alabama is the only state where majority of the population polled are against gay marriage.

theGECK
User avatar
People don't "become an adult", they just get too old to be called a kid
Scootaloo's Pro Scooters
Posts: 95
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2017 9:12 am
Gender: Female
Location: World's best hospital

Re: LGBT - Accepting the Rainbow

Post by theGECK (?) » Wed May 09, 2018 10:20 am

West Filly wrote: ↑
Fri May 04, 2018 11:33 pm
As stupid as it would seem, even with this new understanding people could still say "well even if your brain is a certain way that doesn't mean we ought to let you in the womens' restroom". They'd be morally wrong in what they're suggesting, but they wouldn't be scientifically inaccurate. That's why I want the onus to be on "don't be a butt" not "prove this thing exists". And where is it that people find their morals? It's society. It's the people around them, the things they read, and the experiences they live inside of the society which may shape that experience.
Just to build on this statement, this is an argument I've had with my parents, spouse, other loved ones, etc. Even if I have brain things going on (parents are unwilling to accept that the scientific studies might have merit) that doesn't mean I should change things about my body. It means that I'm unique and wonderful. Instead of taking any steps toward transition, I should find those qualities and embrace them. That would fit the natural order of how I was born and also not make things awkward and inconvenient for everybody else. Because they don't know how to just tell people that I'm doing fine when they want to gossip about me instead.

Even if they agreed with the science, they would still disagree with the actions and the morals I'm presenting as being the way to go through things. The science has no impact on their day to day actions. No matter what the science says, it reinforces the beliefs and the actions they had already decided upon.

Erythema
User avatar
Posts: 62
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2018 10:13 am

Re: LGBT - Accepting the Rainbow

Post by Erythema (?) » Wed May 09, 2018 3:19 pm

West Filly wrote: ↑
Fri May 04, 2018 9:43 pm
You're seeking to define trans people by a specific condition of the brain rather than the reported prolonged experience of dysphoria?

Medically, the experience of dysphoria has already been enough for a medical pathway to be carved out. It's already enough for doctors to feel comfortable in offering informed choices to their patients. The issue isn't the medical definition, but the intervention of politicians in access to those pathways. Altering the medical pathway just to make it more palatable to politicians seems a step backward rather than a step forward.
I'll admit, I haven't really read up on gender dysphoria itself or its documentation. When I came across the whole thing about transsexuality being rooted in one's neuro-anatomy, I didn't need more convincing than that and that the same has proven true for some other people. Something I've become convinced of is that people give hard biology greater authority than psychiatry. I'm guessing it has something to do with people believing that psychiatric and mental disorders in general can be treated or cured with medication and/or psychotherapy. If one is arguing that a person cannot help that they are trans, pinning this on the structure of the brain gives it firm ground to stand on.

So yeah, if the goal is to have a compelling argument, this biological angle is proving quite effective.
West Filly wrote: ↑
Fri May 04, 2018 11:33 pm
The research is interesting and I'm not questioning its findings. I'm not qualified for that.

I'm questioning the idea that the onus should be on trans people to have an indisputable biological reason to exist rather than the onus being on ordinary people to not be butts, particularly people who can make decisions that'll impact on the lives of trans people. Why should trans people have to prove that there's a good reason to have a place in this world when for most else it's just a given?

Also, to completely misuse this phrase: knowing is half the battle. Just because someone knows that doctors could, say, prevent diseases using a certain newly found genetic procedure, doesn't mean they agree that it ought to happen. That's the case no matter how obvious it would seem to use this knowledge. If it were widely known and accepted that the size of a part of the brain effectively indicates your feelings about your gender, and that such is immutable, it still doesn't tell someone in indisputable terms how to act when a trans person is in front of them. That's the case no matter how obvious it is to us that you act in accordance with their gender identity.

As stupid as it would seem, even with this new understanding people could still say "well even if your brain is a certain way that doesn't mean we ought to let you in the womens' restroom". They'd be morally wrong in what they're suggesting, but they wouldn't be scientifically inaccurate. That's why I want the onus to be on "don't be a butt" not "prove this thing exists". And where is it that people find their morals? It's society. It's the people around them, the things they read, and the experiences they live inside of the society which may shape that experience.

I agree that these findings may act to win people over, but I don't agree that this needs to come at the expense of pressing the angle of societal norms. The societal side of this has much more of an impact on signalling to people how to act to one another in ordinary situation than science ever can.
People for the most part are butts if we're going to use that term. Butts have always been around and they always will be. This is why it's important to be prepared to push them back. As for it being a given that most else have a place in this world, I'm rather skeptical about that. To really get ahead in this world, one important thing to do is to prove to everyone that you are indispensable. A person who is difficult to replace in whatever they do is a person with a lot of bargaining chips on their plate.

At least in my experience, when others understand that people of whatever identity do have valid reasons to exist, others will try to figure out how to properly interact with these people. It'll be a rough learning curve, though.

I've no doubt that it'd be wonderful if people can just live and let live but again, these butts are out there and have to be dealt with. We need to have the more effective argument here. So really, I would say that telling people to play nice without making it unequivocally clear that trans people cannot help but to exist would simply be putting the cart before the horse. Making it clear and with no uncertain terms that trans people are here to stay gives us a rock-solid foundation to build upon and gives us that much more leverage to push further. I guess what I'm trying to say is that going this route makes strategic sense and can better guarantee results.

Again, making an indisputable argument for the existence of trans people gives us more leverage to push on the societal front.

diribigal
User avatar
Special Flowers
Posts: 151
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2017 6:35 am
Gender: Male

Re: LGBT - Accepting the Rainbow

Post by diribigal (?) » Wed May 09, 2018 4:21 pm

Erythema wrote: ↑
Wed May 09, 2018 3:19 pm
...neuro-anatomy, I didn't need more convincing than that and that the same has proven true for some other people. ...I guess what I'm trying to say is that going this route makes strategic sense and can better guarantee results.
I feel like your conclusion is an awfully strong claim for something that seems to be based on anecdotes of you and some people you've personally spoken with.

Even if you had the full force of a premise like "makes the most sense to me and everyone in a 5 mile radius of me", I'd argue it doesn't let you say "can better guarantee results" without qualifying it.

For anecdotal contrast, I've had some positive reactions/interactions by really hammering things unrelated to biology like "how, specifically, does it harm you to try to use a new name for this person?" (maybe phrased less confrontationally) and then trying to expand from that basis towards more tolerance, and ideally empathy.
ImageImageImage Very math.

Perrydotto
User avatar
Agents of Chaos
Posts: 1268
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2017 6:20 am
Gender: Female
Location: The Final Frontier

Re: LGBT - Accepting the Rainbow

Post by Perrydotto (?) » Wed May 09, 2018 4:35 pm

Also, no method like this can work if it ignores the concerns and needs of the people you are doing it for in the first place. Again, I understand where you are coming from, but you've gotten feedback even from a trans person that it's something that in reality can be easily dismantled by transphobic folks. It'd really be great if we could point at thing XYZ and that'd make people go "oh huh okay then I will lay off" but that assumes that even IF this research turned out to be 100% true, people would actually take the facts seriously. The fact that anti-vaxxers and other radically anti-intellecutal, anti-factual groups exist and have traction tells me that "but it's medical fact" isn't a strong enough argument to convince everyone.
Image /// Image /// Image

Erythema
User avatar
Posts: 62
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2018 10:13 am

Re: LGBT - Accepting the Rainbow

Post by Erythema (?) » Wed May 09, 2018 10:55 pm

diribigal wrote: ↑
Wed May 09, 2018 4:21 pm
I feel like your conclusion is an awfully strong claim for something that seems to be based on anecdotes of you and some people you've personally spoken with.

Even if you had the full force of a premise like "makes the most sense to me and everyone in a 5 mile radius of me", I'd argue it doesn't let you say "can better guarantee results" without qualifying it.

For anecdotal contrast, I've had some positive reactions/interactions by really hammering things unrelated to biology like "how, specifically, does it harm you to try to use a new name for this person?" (maybe phrased less confrontationally) and then trying to expand from that basis towards more tolerance, and ideally empathy.
Any place I can go to put my money where my mouth is? I'm confident enough to be willing to put it to the test.
Perrydotto wrote: ↑
Wed May 09, 2018 4:35 pm
Also, no method like this can work if it ignores the concerns and needs of the people you are doing it for in the first place. Again, I understand where you are coming from, but you've gotten feedback even from a trans person that it's something that in reality can be easily dismantled by transphobic folks. It'd really be great if we could point at thing XYZ and that'd make people go "oh huh okay then I will lay off" but that assumes that even IF this research turned out to be 100% true, people would actually take the facts seriously. The fact that anti-vaxxers and other radically anti-intellecutal, anti-factual groups exist and have traction tells me that "but it's medical fact" isn't a strong enough argument to convince everyone.
It would be attacked by transphobic folks, yes, and you are correct to point out anti-intellectualism. However, not everyone needs to be convinced. It's the ones who are on the fence or closer to the fence that need to be won over.

West Filly
User avatar
Stare Masters
Posts: 767
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2017 6:46 am
Gender: Male

Re: LGBT - Accepting the Rainbow

Post by West Filly (?) » Thu May 10, 2018 3:19 am

I feel like we've been avoiding the issue.

can you elaborate on what you mean by "the philosophy of gender being a social construct" ?
πŸ‘‰πŸ‘‰πŸ₯œπŸ 

Erythema
User avatar
Posts: 62
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2018 10:13 am

Re: LGBT - Accepting the Rainbow

Post by Erythema (?) » Thu May 10, 2018 6:12 pm

West Filly wrote: ↑
Thu May 10, 2018 3:19 am
I feel like we've been avoiding the issue.

can you elaborate on what you mean by "the philosophy of gender being a social construct" ?
Basically, I'm not up to speed on what that's all about. Should I be put on the spot on what gender is, it's very probable that I'll get some things wrong and miss the point -- maybe entirely.

Mr. Big
User avatar
Open yourself to the Garfield option.
Rarity's Roughnecks
Posts: 903
Joined: Mon Oct 30, 2017 11:00 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Tennessee
Contact:

Re: LGBT - Accepting the Rainbow

Post by Mr. Big (?) » Tue May 15, 2018 4:11 pm

Apparently a lot of anti-LGBT hate crimes are misreported as anti-heterosexual by the police.
None described hate crimes spurred by anti-heterosexual bias. As with the case in Columbus, about half were actually anti-gay or anti-bisexual crimes that were miscategorized. Seven cases appeared to reflect other types of bias, with victims targeted because they were Jewish or black or women. Some 18 cases don’t seem to have been hate crimes at all, containing no discernible bias element.

The findings reflect a larger problem: Many local law enforcement agencies do a poor job tracking hate crimes. It’s a problem that can endanger public safety and leave policy makers blind when grappling with the growing problem of hate crimes and bias incidents in America.

Fizzbuzz
User avatar
Stare Masters
Posts: 948
Joined: Sat Oct 28, 2017 10:54 pm
Gender: Male
Location: TN

Re: LGBT - Accepting the Rainbow

Post by Fizzbuzz (?) » Mon Jun 04, 2018 10:40 am

Remember that Colorado baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple? Remember how his case went to the Supreme Court? That case wrapped up today.

In aa 7-2 decision, the Court found in favor of the baker, saying that the state of Colorado was violating his Constitutionally-guaranteed right of religious freedom :negative:
Image

Mr. Big
User avatar
Open yourself to the Garfield option.
Rarity's Roughnecks
Posts: 903
Joined: Mon Oct 30, 2017 11:00 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Tennessee
Contact:

Re: LGBT - Accepting the Rainbow

Post by Mr. Big (?) » Mon Jun 04, 2018 1:20 pm

An interesting twitter thread on the case from a lawyer, for those wondering about the implications.


Post Reply