• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should transwomen be legally treated as women?[W:165,1392]

Should transwomen be legally trreated as women?


  • Total voters
    160
Chris, what if the transwoman only had an orchiectomy (removal of testes)? Many cannot afford full SRS.

This is not directed at Chris: The poll question is interesting. First, it does not say what legal rights we are talking about. There is not one gender marker lever which instantly makes you treated as a female for all purposes.

Second, why do we only focus on transwomen? Have you seen transguys? Transmen get ruddy skin, can grow beards and may get male pattern baldness. They can develop strong muscles while taking T. Very few of them get bottom surgery because the alternatives are not very satisfactory. However, very few of them are mistaken as cis-women. Almost without exception, after months not years of T, they look and sound like short guys. I have several as friends and they are guys.

Must they go to the women's bathrooms? If not, why not?

See, e.g., Mason Davis formerly of the Transgender Law Center:

http://transgenderlawcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/TLC-285-620x413.jpg

You really want him with the women?

Third, it's sad so many cis-gender people reduce the entire panoply of transgender experiences down to the simple act of going to the bathroom. It is said that we are reduced to the primal need to pee.

What do people think happens in a women's bathroom? I keep my head down, go to the stall and quickly wash my hands, okay, I will also check myself in the mirror for makeup and clothing being awry, and then I go ASAP. I live in Oklahoma and know full well that a mother with her cubs could take a bite out of me, call the cops and living here, who knows what might happen? I will often dehydrate myself if I'm driving any distance so as not to be caught needing to go to the bathroom in a rural area. The transgender counselor at the training I spoke at yesterday said it is very common for trans kids to simply not go to the bathroom all day long. They dehydrate in the morning, rush home to pee, and then hydrate at home.

We can't get past this issue. /sigh

Cis-gender? Transgender? Bi-gender? etc... how about male and female?
 
I do not think I said bi-gender. What about male and female?

There are so many "genders" in today's politically correct psychology when really there are only two... male and female.
 
Chris, I don't know because I've never wanted to date a guy. Very sincerely, I suggest counseling.

I now see the source of your strong feelings. You are confusing your own feelings of sexual desire with my feelings of identity.

My suggestion about counseling is not made flippantly.

I wish you well.

Allie

Not to be an ass but.. you are guy who has a chemical imbalance as all transgenders. A Swedish study a few years back showed the post-op transgenders had more issues (mentally) then transgenders with no operation. Fact is Post Op transgenders still had the same issues as they did before pre-op. That the surgery didn't actually fix the mental side of the "problem".

So you can huff and puff all you want about people's opinion on the issue but can you defend a taxpayer paying for this surgery despite the high mortality rates and psychiatric morbidity in post-op transgenders? The underlying issue is still there despite the surgery.
 
Not to be an ass but.. you are guy who has a chemical imbalance as all transgenders. A Swedish study a few years back showed the post-op transgenders had more issues (mentally) then transgenders with no operation. Fact is Post Op transgenders still had the same issues as they did before pre-op. That the surgery didn't actually fix the mental side of the "problem".

So you can huff and puff all you want about people's opinion on the issue but can you defend a taxpayer paying for this surgery despite the high mortality rates and psychiatric morbidity in post-op transgenders? The underlying issue is still there despite the surgery.

What? No it didnt. That study never compared post op trans people to pre op trans people. It compared post op trans people to non trans people. Their conclusion was that even post op trans people have higher mortality rates then non trans people and stated that there should be continued psychiatric care after SRS. They never attempted to find out why and never claim SRS isnt effective in treating gender dysphoria and in fact the conclusion clearly states that SRS is effective in treating gender dysphoria which is the entire point of SRS to begin with.

You certainly werent the first on this site that tried to use this study to support some anti trans position and im sure you wont be the last.
 
There are so many "genders" in today's politically correct psychology when really there are only two... male and female.
Eh, while I tend to agree that any deviation from male/female guy/girl is nonsensical, I think that the side presenting gender as a separate, though extremely frequently tied, entity to birth sex has more evidence to their claim which is that gender can be separate, and that gender is more of a feeling than it is a currently known gene-identified aspect of biology. I understand the appeal of simplicity and consistency, but what's appealing is not always right or true. The burden of proof really lies on those who are saying that, essentially, because transgender people make up a minority of the population, we cannot therefore learn anything useful about gender through them. It lies on those who claim that gender identity doesn't exist, because there has been evidence presented that it does exist - at least in a good portion of people.

And all of the posts here using the false equivalence of "Oh, well then I identify as ____" are plain dishonest. There is no large overwhelming phenomena of people genuinely asserting that they're Thor, that they're toasters, or that they're another race. The blatantly obvious, and I hope disingenuous, slippery slope/false equivalents are so tiresome.

Don't pretend that your guys' anti-trans arguments are science-based, because they're simply not. No one is refuting the science. A person born with a penis, in most cases, is a person who was born a man, born XY, and born with a penis. Testosterone eventually floods their systems if unaltered, etc. etc.

The problem is that your arguments are philosophically based and being asserted otherwise. They're based on very subjective notions. A typically implied assertion is that definitions shouldn't change/adapt, especially if they're so closely tied to your fragile sexualities and identities. You'll argue that a person is delusional because they claim they're a man and have everything you'd describe as female, and, by YOUR philosophically rigid rationalization, they are not a man, because we have always defined a man to entail certain things and that can't and shouldn't change - it says so in my 2008 Biology book, and science books never change! - which is entirely subjective, many times further "justified" by some mythical "natural order" or some delusional belief in a god, further presenting delusional reasoning by the claim that we'd even know anything about him. Not to mention that ancient cultures actually had a more fluid view of gender too.

Essentially, anti-trans people here are placing their subjective and often faith-based reasoning in front of them to shield themselves from the fact that they are being heartless. They also seem to quite ironically be evolutionarily flawed by way of non-empathetic group behavior, inevitably halting societal progress (for a time) and surely becoming the laughing stock, losing side of history who "knew they were right."

In the end, if you're intellectually sound, you'll realize that there is no absolutely conclusive, immalleable facts on gender, but we do have more evidence to support gender separate from sex than we do evidence that gender is inherently the same thing as sex, and if you're emotionally sound, you'll recognize that the default position should be to support trans people and do the incredibly easy task of respecting their claimed identities which we have no scientific - not philosophical - argument against.
 
Last edited:
but at the end of the day genetically they are the sex they were born.

Here's the thing, I am not aware of any studies that looks at the genetics of TG's. So how do you know they are the standard genetics? Maybe they're Chimeras or have AIS or other genetic anomalies.
 
Eh, while I tend to agree that any deviation from male/female guy/girl is nonsensical, I think that the side presenting gender as a separate, though extremely frequently tied, entity to birth sex has more evidence to their claim which is that gender can be separate, and that gender is more of a feeling than it is a currently known gene-identified aspect of biology. I understand the appeal of simplicity and consistency, but what's appealing is not always right or true. The burden of proof really lies on those who are saying that, essentially, because transgender people make up a minority of the population, we cannot therefore learn anything useful about gender through them. It lies on those who claim that gender identity doesn't exist, because there has been evidence presented that it does exist - at least in a good portion of people.

And all of the posts here using the false equivalence of "Oh, well then I identify as ____" are plain dishonest. There is no large overwhelming phenomena of people genuinely asserting that they're Thor, that they're toasters, or that they're another race. The blatantly obvious, and I hope disingenuous, slippery slope/false equivalents are so tiresome.

Don't pretend that your guys' anti-trans arguments are science-based, because they're simply not. No one is refuting the science. A person born with a penis, in most cases, is a person who was born a man, born XY, and born with a penis. Testosterone eventually floods their systems if unaltered, etc. etc.

The problem is that your arguments are philosophically based and being asserted otherwise. They're based on very subjective notions. A typically implied assertion is that definitions shouldn't change/adapt, especially if they're so closely tied to your fragile sexualities and identities. You'll argue that a person is delusional because they claim they're a man and have everything you'd describe as female, and, by YOUR philosophically rigid rationalization, they are not a man, because we have always defined a man to entail certain things and that can't and shouldn't change - it says so in my 2008 Biology book, and science books never change! - which is entirely subjective, many times further "justified" by some mythical "natural order" or some delusional belief in a god, further presenting delusional reasoning by the claim that we'd even know anything about him. Not to mention that ancient cultures actually had a more fluid view of gender too.

Essentially, anti-trans people here are placing their subjective and often faith-based reasoning in front of them to shield themselves from the fact that they are being heartless. They also seem to quite ironically be evolutionarily flawed by way of non-empathetic group behavior, inevitably halting societal progress (for a time) and surely becoming the laughing stock, losing side of history who "knew they were right."

In the end, if you're intellectually sound, you'll realize that there is no absolutely conclusive, immalleable facts on gender, but we do have more evidence to support gender separate from sex than we do evidence that gender is inherently the same thing as sex, and if you're emotionally sound, you'll recognize that the default position should be to support trans people and do the incredibly easy task of respecting their claimed identities which we have no scientific - not philosophical - argument against.

There is no such thing as mental gender. you are either masculine or feminine or both in your pshyche (not to be confused with gender). Then there is male, female, and other, and none for gender (hermaphrodites and people born without a gender). You are saying that some guy who never met his dad, was raised by his mom, and 80% effeminate is a girl because he thinks in a feminine way?
 
There is no such thing as mental gender. you are either masculine or feminine or both in your pshyche (not to be confused with gender). Then there is male, female, and other, and none for gender (hermaphrodites and people born without a gender). You are saying that some guy who never met his dad, was raised by his mom, and 80% effeminate is a girl because he thinks in a feminine way?
There is a section of the brain that tells you what your gender is and is formed through fluxes of hormones. Some people get the opposite hormones fluxed that are typically associated with the opposite gender. Anyone who says that they're not the gender their brain physically formed to support is just playing against the facts and using a subjective parameter to disregard the facts, which I'm not interested in. I'm interested in both the truth and having empathy, both of which are suited in supporting transgender individuals.
 
There is a section of the brain that tells you what your gender is and is formed through fluxes of hormones. Some people get the opposite hormones fluxed that are typically associated with the opposite gender. Anyone who says that they're not the gender their brain physically formed to support is just playing against the facts and using a subjective parameter to disregard the facts, which I'm not interested in. I'm interested in both the truth and having empathy, both of which are suited in supporting transgender individuals.

You can think im unempathetic all you want. What i say just seems like common sense. TO ME. If you get to know me you might find me being the most empathetic person you ever met. Ive never met someone who was openly trans though so I could assess them. I have only met gays and crossdressers. Well this one that i got to know online really, really seemed like a female but thats about it. She was born with a wonky penis though so I just assumed she was making do the best she could with what she had.

All we need is a new terminology for "effeminate and feminine mind" that has nothing to do with being a girl or a boy. Being a girl or a boy is dependent on penis or vagina. Its because gender roles are so convoluted when it should just be "you have a penis or a vagina" and can act any amount of femanine or masculine as you want without judgement. But the very words masculine and femanine instill a sense of gender because we are so used to it. When the universe doesnt see it this way. Masculine and Femanine have no gender they are just a social mechanism for categorization of behavior to society around them. Even in nature you come across animals where the female half of the race is more masculine in actions than the male half. Masculine and Feminine can be attributed to "preditor and prey" except its not that extreme within society and humans. I wish i could think of a better word than Masculine but i dont like "dominant" either.

I think if you accept yourself then you would call yourself feminine if you felt girly (assuming you were a guy that was girly). If you want societys acceptance more (a whole bunch of people that you will never meet) then you will prolly care more about your drivers license saying "female" than calling yourself "girly". There is no need to say "my mind is feminine" on a license or ID, this is just for personal ego.
 
Eh, while I tend to agree that any deviation from male/female guy/girl is nonsensical, I think that the side presenting gender as a separate, though extremely frequently tied, entity to birth sex has more evidence to their claim which is that gender can be separate, and that gender is more of a feeling than it is a currently known gene-identified aspect of biology. I understand the appeal of simplicity and consistency, but what's appealing is not always right or true. The burden of proof really lies on those who are saying that, essentially, because transgender people make up a minority of the population, we cannot therefore learn anything useful about gender through them. It lies on those who claim that gender identity doesn't exist, because there has been evidence presented that it does exist - at least in a good portion of people.

And all of the posts here using the false equivalence of "Oh, well then I identify as ____" are plain dishonest. There is no large overwhelming phenomena of people genuinely asserting that they're Thor, that they're toasters, or that they're another race. The blatantly obvious, and I hope disingenuous, slippery slope/false equivalents are so tiresome.

Don't pretend that your guys' anti-trans arguments are science-based, because they're simply not. No one is refuting the science. A person born with a penis, in most cases, is a person who was born a man, born XY, and born with a penis. Testosterone eventually floods their systems if unaltered, etc. etc.

The problem is that your arguments are philosophically based and being asserted otherwise. They're based on very subjective notions. A typically implied assertion is that definitions shouldn't change/adapt, especially if they're so closely tied to your fragile sexualities and identities. You'll argue that a person is delusional because they claim they're a man and have everything you'd describe as female, and, by YOUR philosophically rigid rationalization, they are not a man, because we have always defined a man to entail certain things and that can't and shouldn't change - it says so in my 2008 Biology book, and science books never change! - which is entirely subjective, many times further "justified" by some mythical "natural order" or some delusional belief in a god, further presenting delusional reasoning by the claim that we'd even know anything about him. Not to mention that ancient cultures actually had a more fluid view of gender too.

Essentially, anti-trans people here are placing their subjective and often faith-based reasoning in front of them to shield themselves from the fact that they are being heartless. They also seem to quite ironically be evolutionarily flawed by way of non-empathetic group behavior, inevitably halting societal progress (for a time) and surely becoming the laughing stock, losing side of history who "knew they were right."

In the end, if you're intellectually sound, you'll realize that there is no absolutely conclusive, immalleable facts on gender, but we do have more evidence to support gender separate from sex than we do evidence that gender is inherently the same thing as sex, and if you're emotionally sound, you'll recognize that the default position should be to support trans people and do the incredibly easy task of respecting their claimed identities which we have no scientific - not philosophical - argument against.

A thoughtful response... thank you. Anti-Trans people here are generally very rude and base their reasoning on faith or emotion. Personally I have no problem with anybody that is nice, a good citizen and pays their taxes. My argument is that the idea of gender is a made up concept. There are males and females. Biological fact. How people percieve themselves... gender, is a social/psychological construct designed to help people feel better about themselves or to help others classify people. I think that is negative. People should be free to feel however they like and others should not be concerned about others feelings.
 
Trans MTF fights a woman in MMA, breaks her eye socket and gives her a concussion 2 minutes into the "fight".

Yeah that's not at all problematic. :roll:

Transgender MMA Fighter Destroys Female Opponent

Of course anyone who thinks that there is something wrong with a guy who has his “boy parts” cut off, and pretends to be a woman, so that he can get away with beating the solid digestive waste out of actual women; is a “hateful transphobic bigot”.
 
Of course anyone who thinks that there is something wrong with a guy who has his “boy parts” cut off, and pretends to be a woman, so that he can get away with beating the solid digestive waste out of actual women; is a “hateful transphobic bigot”.
I seriously doubt the person in question had sexual reassignment surgery specifically so they could beat up women.

That said, it is an interesting question. Does her prior gender and it's inherent traits giver her too large an advantage?
 
Of course anyone who thinks that there is something wrong with a guy who has his “boy parts” cut off, and pretends to be a woman, so that he can get away with beating the solid digestive waste out of actual women; is a “hateful transphobic bigot”.

Bu bu but... "she" had hormone therapy. :roll:
 
Does her prior gender and it's inherent traits giver her too large an advantage?

Yes. I believe the following speaks for itself:

“I can only say, I’ve never felt so overpowered ever in my life, and I am an abnormally strong female in my own right.”

Fox’s “grip was different,” Brents added. “I could usually move around in the clinch against…females but couldn’t move at all in Fox’s clinch.”

In 2013, after a 39-second knockout victory, Fox’s fifth straight first-round victory, it was revealed that Fox had not told the MMA community about her sex-change operation, which took place in 2006.

That person should never set foot in the ring again. Not revealing something so important should be criminal.
 
Bu bu but... "she" had hormone therapy. :roll:
The quickness of those with views like yours to grasp at straws like professional fighting being a potential issue, the quickness to mock a debilitating condition (from presumably a high position of privilege to boot) - and the mocking of those arguing for proper treatment of those individuals afflicted, coupled with the overly hesitant attitude to be empathetic and generally humane speaks volumes in many ways about the validity of the arguments and positions connected to those views.

ME ME ME ME ME
 
The quickness of those with views like yours to grasp at straws like professional fighting being a potential issue, the quickness to mock a debilitating condition (from presumably a high position of privilege to boot) - and the mocking of those arguing for proper treatment of those individuals afflicted, coupled with the overly hesitant attitude to be empathetic and generally humane speaks volumes in many ways about the validity of the arguments and positions connected to those views.

If you'd actually read my posts, nowhere did I "mock" Fallon Fox. If anything, I was mocking the ridiculous SJW stance that because a man undergoes hormone therapy that it will somehow take away his physical advantages.

Secondly, bringing up this issue wasn't "grasping at straws". If you had read the thread, you'd see that the issue of MTF trans people competing in women events has been discussed at length. That makes it quite on topic for this thread.

Third, I am so sick and tired of rational arguments being dismissed with this "but muh feels" BS. This has nothing to do with being empathetic or humane towards Fallon Fox. Set aside your hurt feelings for a moment and look at the actual issues that something like this raises... maybe you'll see that not everything is about making sure you or anybody else is coddled enough.

ME ME ME ME ME

At least you're self aware enough to get that part right. The SJW mentality perfectly summed up in 1 word repeated 5 times.
 
If you'd actually read my posts, nowhere did I "mock" Fallon Fox. If anything, I was mocking the ridiculous SJW stance that because a man undergoes hormone therapy that it will somehow take away his physical advantages.
Yes, because calling someone who is a girl "she" with quotation marks is a sign of respect. It's totally not mocking. Keep making yourself believe in things that aren't true; seems to be going well for you.

Secondly, bringing up this issue wasn't "grasping at straws". If you had read the thread, you'd see that the issue of MTF trans people competing in women events has been discussed at length. That makes it quite on topic for this thread.
Actually, it is grasping at straws. It's an otherwise pretty dull story with some small micro-arguments to be had about it turned into a fear-mongering argument relating to trasngenderism as a whole, as usual with the slippery slope right. The only difference is that the slippery slopes are becoming more and more veiled and implicit.

hird, I am so sick and tired of rational arguments being dismissed with this "but muh feels" BS. This has nothing to do with being empathetic or humane towards Fallon Fox. Set aside your hurt feelings for a moment and look at the actual issues that something like this raises... maybe you'll see that not everything is about making sure you or anybody else is coddled enough.
My hurt feelings? Yes, my feelings are so hurt as someone who isn't a transgender person. And clearly because I'm arguing for human decency in relation to OTHER people, this is about MY feelings. It has everything to do with being empathetic to the individual at hand, and this is coming from someone who didn't deliberately try to disrespect her and other transgender people. I'd say that someone arguing on the side who HAS done such a non-human thing would have no rational basis for which to argue with, but rather a heap of emotional bias.

We both know this topic came up and is being presented the way it is in order to push a fear-mongering agenda, and you can deny or admit the truth but it remains the same.

At least you're self aware enough to get that part right. The SJW mentality perfectly summed up in 1 word repeated 5 times
Seems like a sound hypothesis. It totally takes into account the fact that the majority of "SJWs" are NOT in the need of social justice. I, being a non-trans white male, surely am being selfish while arguing for rights of others that don't relate to me.

????


Encouraging others to not act in ways that causes people severe distress is definitely coddling too. For sure. Keep telling yourself that so that you can stay mad that there are large movements that have nothing to do with you and are therefore unnecessary and indulgent in your mind.
 
Yes, because calling someone who is a girl "she" with quotation marks is a sign of respect.

The person in question is not a girl. That's the point. He is a eunuch—a castrated man. He still has the bone structure, muscle structure, and strength of a man. And by pretending to be female, he getd to beat up women.
 
The person in question is not a girl. That's the point. He is a eunuch—a castrated man. He still has the bone structure, muscle structure, and strength of a man. And by pretending to be female, he getd to beat up women.
All of your posts about transgenderism, including this one, hinge on the disingenuous assertion that gender is inherently sex, which is largely false, and even if you were to criticize the sizable evidence base, you'd still likely conclude that it's "more than likely" false if you were to evaluate it honestly.

With little doubt that this is false in all factual regards, there is no excuse to blatantly disregard someone's feelings and disrespect them on the basis that you have a hunch which goes against the evidence that, quite frankly, dismantles your worldview.

In short, you, day by day, discredit evidence and professional consensus and replace these with suppositions and your own singular personal opinion so as to avoid the various conflicts within your line of reasoning.

A eunuch is a man whose genitals have been removed. This woman, however, is not a man, by the most updated, accurate, professionally described version of the definition. Will you acknowledge this? Of course not. And to add you'll act like this one (largely unimportant) instance where we don't exactly know how the issue should be dealt with is some testament against the very principal of accepting the aforementioned facts.
 
All of your posts about transgenderism, including this one, hinge on the disingenuous assertion that gender is inherently sex, which is largely false, and even if you were to criticize the sizable evidence base, you'd still likely conclude that it's "more than likely" false if you were to evaluate it honestly.

With little doubt that this is false in all factual regards, there is no excuse to blatantly disregard someone's feelings and disrespect them on the basis that you have a hunch which goes against the evidence that, quite frankly, dismantles your worldview.

In short, you, day by day, discredit evidence and professional consensus and replace these with suppositions and your own singular personal opinion so as to avoid the various conflicts within your line of reasoning.

A eunuch is a man whose genitals have been removed. This woman, however, is not a man, by the most updated, accurate, professionally described version of the definition. Will you acknowledge this? Of course not. And to add you'll act like this one (largely unimportant) instance where we don't exactly know how the issue should be dealt with is some testament against the very principal of accepting the aforementioned facts.

I would like to see this updated, accurate and professional(lol) described version of the definition. Then maybe you can tell me why I should respect the definition that completely ignores biological fact.
 
All of your posts about transgenderism, including this one, hinge on the disingenuous assertion that gender is inherently sex, which is largely false, and even if you were to criticize the sizable evidence base, you'd still likely conclude that it's "more than likely" false if you were to evaluate it honestly.

Even most five-year-olds understand the difference between boys and girls. It's obvious.

That you cannot understand what every five-year-old easily can is your problem, not that of those who do understand it.

To claim that a castrated and mutilated man is female is just insane.
 
Even most five-year-olds understand the difference between boys and girls. It's obvious.

That you cannot understand what every five-year-old easily can is your problem, not that of those who do understand it.

To claim that a castrated and mutilated man is female is just insane.

I would call it ****ing ignorant. There comes a time when this liberal "acceptance" crap becomes flat out retarded and calling a castrated man a woman is most definitely retarded.
 
Back
Top Bottom