People who assume I'm some bad person because of my personal/religious beliefs.

[Ginger Tea]

On the whole calling someone he or her, I guess it depends on if you know what they look like IRL, if I have no idea who you are I blindly accept that you are the gender, race and age you say you are, what do you get to gain from lying?

edit: forgot to continue this line of thought ...

Online you can be anyone and be accepted to be stating the truth, IRL however, should I meet a woman I met on line and she was in fact very obviously male, I would have a hard time referring to him as her even if she was going to undertake hormone replacement therapy and eventually SRS. At this moment in time I am face to face with a man in trousers and a tshirt, not a man in a dress somewhere between cross dresser and transvestite (if there is a difference). Six-12 months down the line however our first meeting could be drastically different and there would be a more feminine face, breasts (even if they are a padded bra or inserts) and a figure hugging dress. I would not see a man in front of me.



Yes Caitlyn was born a man, but it would be wrong to just blindly say "Oh he's still a man." even after full SRS, yes there are certain parts of biology that surgery can not fix and we don't live in Star Trek where a simple XX/XY switch can be toggled so that you rematerialize the opposite complete with working reproductive organs.

I would not call Buck Angel a woman nor Baily Jay a man (although I saw a comment somewhere recently saying that she only had breast implants for her porn career and was happy being a 'trap' though this was an uncited 3rd party)

One guest on the co optional podcast (Lana or Laura K) apparently transitioned to a woman and a tonne of comments about 'him' were deleted and rightfully so, I myself didn't know this nor tbh did I care, she wasn't smoking hot or dog ugly, but she looked like a woman and I had no reason to doubt this, she had a lovely anecdote about how her girlfriend proposed to her. OK she's a lesbian, whoop de do.

and taking it further off topic, can we get over people coming out yet?
its the 21st century and same sex marriage is legal in a fair few countries (Ireland being the latest), when Elen Paige came out there was such an uproar from (former?) fans as now the woman they would never meet would now have another reason to not sleep with them.

FFS, she lives in America, I live in England, what would the odds be of me bumping into her down my local and hitting it off had she been straight?
Very effing low, so her liking women means nothing, she can bang who she wants, it changes nothing about her ability to act.

With Bruce/Caitlyn we know her biological history, it's been front page news and on gossip sites everywhere, she wont be able to fully walk out of his shadow or ghost.

Every day Josephine's however, I meet you and I am meeting you as you are now, not five years ago when you had a beard and went by the name Joe. Yes there are minefields in the whole dating someone who is trans, but 90% probably only apply in the transitional state when you find something unexpected in the bedroom.

Post op and the talk of children came up, well you could either lie that you cant conceive not even with IVF or come clean.

Which would I prefer IDK, but I would like to think I would not freak out if told the truth.

[Mr Hero]

This raises a question I've always had about gender identity. Bob is born a male, but identifies as a female. What factors has led Bob to identifying this way?

[Ginger Tea]

Gender dysphoria is the main factor.

One Tumblr in action thread* there was a post that boiled down to some people 'grow out' of transgender thoughts during puberty, not all and it might only be a small percentage, those people might go on to have relations with the same sex and could have thought "I'm a boy but I like boys too. Boy's don't like other boys only girls like boys. I must be a girl."

Again [citation needed], but after reading that post I did wonder how many gay men thought they were transsexuals because homosexuality is frowned upon in some states education, so instead of going "Oh I'm gay." they rationalized otherwise until they found out that men do have sex with men.

* it was probably a Tucute thread as trans issues don't really get brought up aside from wanting to slap them around the head for calling genuine transsexuals truscum (yes they do call them that).

[jedimaster91]

This raises a question I've always had about gender identity. Bob is born a male, but identifies as a female. What factors has led Bob to identifying this way?

That is something I would be very curious to find out. I've often wondered if there are differences in brain chemistry or some kind of genetic or environmental component that can predict or pinpoint individuals who identify as something other than how they are born. I imagine there probably is, science just hasn't found it yet and it would likely be a very controversial area of research. To my knowledge, Gender Dysphoria is still listed in the DSM as a mental disorder. Homosexuality was at one time as well. It will be interesting to see if that changes.


On a side note, I hate the phrase "assigned at birth." For one, sex is determined at conception and prenatal testing has progressed enough to be able to find out whether the baby is male or female within the first few weeks of pregnancy. So the "at birth" part is just medically incorrect. Secondly, "assigned" implies someone made a conscious choice of whether the baby is male or female. The parents really have no control over that; first sperm to break through wins. Science is getting closer to "designer babies" where parents could decide gender, eye and hair color, among other traits, but that's at best experimental technology and not widely available. I know the phrase is unlikely to change or go away, but it still bugs me.

[Andara Bledin]

On a side note, I hate the phrase "assigned at birth." For one, sex is determined at conception and prenatal testing has progressed enough to be able to find out whether the baby is male or female within the first few weeks of pregnancy. So the "at birth" part is just medically incorrect. Secondly, "assigned" implies someone made a conscious choice of whether the baby is male or female. The parents really have no control over that; first sperm to break through wins. Science is getting closer to "designer babies" where parents could decide gender, eye and hair color, among other traits, but that's at best experimental technology and not widely available. I know the phrase is unlikely to change or go away, but it still bugs me.

Yeah..... that's mostly correct.

Except for outliers. Currently, it's estimated that something over 1% of people are some flavor of intersex, and that number could be much higher while being unlikely to be any lower.

The "assigned at birth" is actually something that the intersex community prefers, because it means that it's not necessarily the truth, merely what was either thought to be true or considered close enough at that point.

[jedimaster91]

Except for outliers. Currently, it's estimated that something over 1% of people are some flavor of intersex, and that number could be much higher while being unlikely to be any lower.

The "assigned at birth" is actually something that the intersex community prefers, because it means that it's not necessarily the truth, merely what was either thought to be true or considered close enough at that point.

There will always be outliers, and sure in those cases the parents do make a choice one way or the other. I think there was an episode of House featuring a child who was born with genitalia for both genders and his parents decided to make him a boy. I'd have to watch the episode again to remember the specifics. Generally, though you get what you get when sperm and egg combine. The phrase may be appropriate and apply strictly to those who are intersex, but it's being picked up by the transgender community who were definitely born as one gender and identify as a different one. That's the application that bugs me. Then again, I'm medical people and I like specificity.

And as medical people, there are times we need to know your biology. We're not overly concerned with what you identify as (we will use your preferred pronouns), but different disease processes present differently in males and females. We especially need to know if you're on hormones because they can do some wonky things. It will also help make sure your results don't get mixed up. If your chart says female but your bloodwork says male, that can cause problems. So please understand if you end up needing to be treated by someone who doesn't know your history, they really aren't trying to be rude, they just want to make sure you get the correct care.

[Ginger Tea]

If Josephine moves to a different town and her medical records don't transfer for one reason or another (eg they can't find her but they do have a Mr Joe same last name) and she doesn't tell her new GP she was born male she will not be given a check up for prostate cancer later in life.

[Stitchwitch]

That is something I would be very curious to find out. I've often wondered if there are differences in brain chemistry or some kind of genetic or environmental component that can predict or pinpoint individuals who identify as something other than how they are born. I imagine there probably is, science just hasn't found it yet and it would likely be a very controversial area of research. To my knowledge, Gender Dysphoria is still listed in the DSM as a mental disorder. Homosexuality was at one time as well. It will be interesting to see if that changes.

It's been proven through MRIs and CAT scans that 1) men and women have very different brain structures and 2) transpersons have the brains of their target gender, not their biological one. So, yes, it is a brain chemistry thing.

(I did quite a bit of research about this because I thought I might be trans*, turns out I'm actually genderfluid.)

Also, about the original point of this thread, I'm Pagan, the number of times I've gotten the "You don't belong to a Judao-Christian faith so you must worship the Devil and are therefor evil" Speech is more than I like to think about. So yeah, people shouldn't judge others based exclusively on their faith without first finding out how they actually express that faith.

[Andara Bledin]

Also, about the original point of this thread, I'm Pagan, the number of times I've gotten the "You don't belong to a Judao-Christian faith so you must worship the Devil and are therefor evil" Speech is more than I like to think about. So yeah, people shouldn't judge others based exclusively on their faith without first finding out how they actually express that faith.

I've gotten, "You won't let me talk to you about religion, so you must be evil and foul and I'm going to shout obscenities at you, now" more than a few times, myself, and I do follow a Judeo-Christian faith. >_>

[HYHYBT]

Slight misunderstanding here. "Not mutually exclusive" does not mean they always align, nor is it negated by providing an example where they don't.

Try instead, for a clear example, someone saying "black people sure are lazy," and then, when challenged on that, saying "I'm not being racist, I'm just stating my opinion." As if what opinion they're stating has nothing to do with it.

[mjr]

Slight misunderstanding here. "Not mutually exclusive" does not mean they always align, nor is it negated by providing an example where they don't.

Try instead, for a clear example, someone saying "black people sure are lazy," and then, when challenged on that, saying "I'm not being racist, I'm just stating my opinion." As if what opinion they're stating has nothing to do with it.

Yeah, that's an example. Another thing I strongly dislike, is how some people refer to some words as "code words", when they're not.

For example, if you say, "That guy's a thug", someone might say that you're racist, because you used a racist "code word" (apparently there's a list somewhere...). But what if you're white, and the person you're calling a "thug" is a white guy? I've seen plenty of thug white guys.

[Rageaholic]

If a religious person is against pre-marital sex, and they are critical of those who engage in the activity, does that mean that they "hate"?

Hate might be too strong a word, but this is starting to sound like that "love the sinner hate the sin" line.

While I can't speak for everyone else, I think a lot those who are annoyed by the religious are annoyed by the judgmental ones who think that everyone who doesn't follow their moral code is going to hell (or at the very least, worthy of scorn). In this case, it's not that they have traditional values, it's that they are actively critical of those who don't share them. While they're not forcing anyone to live the way they do, being criticized and told you're morally wrong can get grating.

[Rageaholic]

Yeah, that's an example. Another thing I strongly dislike, is how some people refer to some words as "code words", when they're not.

For example, if you say, "That guy's a thug", someone might say that you're racist, because you used a racist "code word" (apparently there's a list somewhere...). But what if you're white, and the person you're calling a "thug" is a white guy? I've seen plenty of thug white guys.

Yeah, I never thought of thugs as a racial term. I always thought it could describe anyone low life violent punk. It could also be another word to describe mooks (nameless bad guys working for the villain in a movie or tv show. They tend to get slaughtered easily)

[Estil]

Yeah, that's an example. Another thing I strongly dislike, is how some people refer to some words as "code words", when they're not.

For example, if you say, "That guy's a thug", someone might say that you're racist, because you used a racist "code word" (apparently there's a list somewhere...). But what if you're white, and the person you're calling a "thug" is a white guy? I've seen plenty of thug white guys.

Indeed, my "father" was very much an abusive bully of a thug. And yes he is white and he was very much at least a "wannabe racist". And I absolutely agree about this whole code word business as well as "overtones", "undertones" or really anything with "-tones" in it is mostly total nonsense. In fact I think this whole business of slapping racist labels too easily/quickly is becoming (if it hasn't already) the new McCarthyism.

[HYHYBT]

Dog whistles are real; the trouble is that the same words are also used for their straightforward meanings. Which also, of course, is the point.