[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/lgbt/ - Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, & Transgender


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.



File: fdg.jpg (220 KB, 851x577)
220 KB
220 KB JPG
I'm so tired of all of the anti-trans hatred. I'm not even transitioning so it's not like I'm forced to endure it in meatspace but it's still overwhelming. Just knowing that there are so many people out there who are like this, perhaps even the majority, is completely exhausting. Every large, mainstream space I know of that isn't explicitly left wing is filled with seemingly decent people who, when exposed to a story that relates to trans people, will immediately compare being trans to identifying as Napoleon or something equally stupid. I don't want to fight what feels like the whole fucking world. I wish I could just run away to some place filled with friendly, understanding people but there's no country on Earth where a huge percentage of the population isn't transphobic. I can't imagine how awful all of this is for people who are visibly trans.

Transphobes think that we're here to impose on them. They don't understand that we're trapped with them, not the other way around.
>>
>>11756441
Rightwing: hate you in public, respect your rights in private
Lefting: Love you in public, vote to import muslims that want you to kill you in private
>>
Welcome to a big reason why I will probably repress to the grave.
>>
>>11756441
>perhaps even the majority
>perhaps
Seriously? There was moments where you thought even 50.000001% of the population weren't against trans people? There is nothing natural about taking artificial hormones and getting extensive plastic surgery to look like the other gender. People came around on homos because you literally would see it in nature, but Surgery and artificial hormones didn't exist back in the day. You had a penis, you joined them for the hunt. if you didn't do this you weren't a good man.

There was never some secret definition of gender that was different from sex outside of stupid outliers like south east asia or when native americans arranged marriages before birth. And even in cases like the native americans the 'MTF' wife was sought after because you could treat them like a MAN.

There is literally nothing wrong with being trans, you aren't a bad person for indulging it or wishing you were female or even actively trying to live a female lifestyle. On a spiritual level in particular it is quite a beautiful thing to see when done correctly. But you can't expect the majority of the world to bend to your will. Our classifications exist for a reason and trying to change the definitions of man and woman to suit .5% of the population isn't going to end well.
>>
>>11756448
Stop. Just stop. Do you understand that you're roleplaying? Legal rights and social acceptance matter a great deal.

>>11756457
I'm heartbroken right now but if I could pass I'd still transition. If you have a chance please take it. The way I'm living my life isn't sustainable.
>>
>>11756484
Do you really think that what people hate about us is that we want to use certain words differently, that if we suddenly used the words they want us to use they'd let us go through life unmolested?
>>
>>11756536
Do I think that is the core issue? No people who hated trans people were always going to hate trans people. Does this push to be treated like a real woman help? No, it makes things worse. I was pretty pro-trans all around, I even wrote a movie script with a trans woman where her point was that these super powered girls can only have powers because they are women, thus making her realize she is a true woman on the inside since she can also harness that power.

Then the trans movement became toxic and I threw away the script. I don't want to have it misconstrued as thinking that trans women are real women and should be treated exactly like such. People who supported trans over all are turning away because of the compelled pronouns and trans in sports issue.

Like if trans are serious about there being a difference between gender and sex (they arent, its a difference between gender and gender IDENTITY but lets take a look at it from the trans poitn of view) then some things should be divided based off of sex and sometimes gender. Bathrooms make sense to divide on 'gender' because there are stalls, it really is just about who you blend in with. Athletics and locker rooms on the other hand should be divided based off of sex, the reason those particular divisions exist is to that women can compete with people who have the same biology instead of getting demolished by men, and locker rooms exist so they can change in privacy without a penis around.

But trans people won't relent on that, saying that I am transphobic for using their own logic in their favor but insisting that a distinction on sex makes sense in just TWO places.
>>
>>11756505
>Stop. Just stop. Do you understand that you're roleplaying? Legal rights and social acceptance matter a great deal.

Voting left is voting against your own interests
>>
>>11756598
I don't really get it either. Not only do the left want us to take in muslims, but they want to preserve their culture. How do they expect that to work if we give them voting rights?
>>
>>11756594
Here's something I wrote a while ago. If you don't know who Bettcher is that's okay. The quote goes over the important part.

>I think Bettcher's philosophical claims amount to intellectual sleight of hand. She goes over all of the ways in which trans women are not like cis women. They do not have the lived experience of growing up female, they do not necessarily wish to perform gender in a way that is recognizably womanly and while there is evidence that they are neurologically feminized in some ways that does not mean that one must accept them as women because where one draws the line is subjective. Okay, all true. She then proposes her solution: if we culturally redefine womanhood to include trans women then trans women really will be women! Neat. Also, pure semantics. If we redefine the middle class to include the poor beggars won't suddenly stop being poor vis a vis material reality. In practice Bettcher completely concedes that there are coherent definitions under which trans women are not women. That is, that the metaphysical claim that trans women are not women is potentially right if you define the terms in a certain way.

>So, there are coherent, correct definitions under which trans women are women and coherent, correct definitions under which trans women are not women. Where does that leave us? In the land of ethical, not metaphysical (moral realists BEGONE), arguments. In the land of the Ought, not the Is. I'm pro-trans because I believe that a person should be able to do whatever they want as long as they don't harm anyone else. I believe freedom is conductive to happiness and so we should aim to maximize it when possible. Transitioning is important for the well-being of trans people. Gatekeeping violates their bodily autonomy, the most fundamental freedom of all. The ability to go about your business without being unjustly discriminated against is another important part of being free so legislation along that line is crucial.

Cont.
>>
>>11756594
>>11756682
>Trans women do not have to be women for any of this to be true. Trans women can be trans women, and indeed, I think that it IS a metaphysical fact that trans women are trans women. Since they are *distinct* from both men and women, possessing group-defining traits from both groups, I think it makes sense to think of them as their own group. Now, you can still make semantic arguments regarding whether one should or should nor include trans women in the super group of women, but as I said before there are valid answers that could take us either way. The important part is the recognition that we have a group of people with distinct needs.

>If you share my values then you believe that we should address those needs. Here the transphobes are the ones that play at prestidigitation. "Women's bathrooms are for women -> Trans women are not women -> Trans women should not be allowed to enter women's bathrooms". This does not follow. We must look at the *purpose* of the things in front of us, not at the labels we have attached to them. We sex-segregate these spaces because women are in danger of being assaulted by men, who are much stronger than they are. Trans women who are visibly trans and take cross-sex hormones are also 1) significantly weaker than men, on average 2) in danger of being assaulted by them. As such, whether they are women or not, letting them use the women's restroom is consistent and logical. Mind, this is not the sole solution. You could also reasonably argue that trans women should get their own restroom. Either way sending them in with the men exposes them to harm and is inconsistent with how we treat cis people.

Cont.
>>
>>11756682
>y. In practice Bettcher completely concedes that there are coherent definitions under which trans women are not women. That is, that the metaphysical claim that trans women are not women is potentially right if you define the terms.
Here is where I draw issue, not with the ideas that extend from it because I believe those are self evident, but from this idea of definitions. I hate when someone who is pro or anti trans tries to talk science about this because I do not believe any science goes into the definition of man and women outside of the science of classification. We, as a society, define gender as the difference between our genitals, and generally there are more differences that expand outward from that, but those were always the point. a man who did not properly go through puberty was still considered male. A male who developed breasts through some issue of hormones or genetics was still considered male. A male who was extremely feminine was still considered male. The problem with trans is that they wish to take a classification (feminine and masculine, which already exist and that both genders can use to describe themselves) and use it to replace a different set of classification, sex (which boils down to the genitals at the end of the day. Yes, patterns expand outward from that generally as do gender roles but those haven't been legally enforced for almost 40 years).

Changing the definition doesn't change the issue. Now men are not allowed to say 'I am only attracted to women' i nterms of sexual preference if we give trans people their definition because new definitions would come to replace sex / gender if trans people did get their way. We'd just start saying 'I am a birth penis having person and I am only attracted to birth vagina having individuals'.

Changing definitions does absolutely nothing to help trans people, just like how you explain redefining the poor as middle class doesn't actually change anything.

cont.
>>
>>11756594
>>11756682
>>11756690
>In terms of material reality I think that it makes the most sense to consider trans women to be neither male nor female. The attempt to push them under one umbrella or the other is, I feel, usually ideologically driven. Not being male nor female is not a bad thing! That trans women are not female does not imply that they shouldn't be treated like women in social settings. This is another Is-Ought situation. I think that we should strive to make one another feel comfortable when we can do so as long as we're not asked to do anything harmful. I don't think it's at all harmful to allow trans women to socialize as women as long as everyone keeps material reality in mind. On the contrary, I think that it is good and just. We should all strive to stay out of one another's way, accommodating each other whenever we can do so without doing harm.

So.. I agree that one can support trans rights without insisting that cis women and trans women are exactly the same and should be treated in the same fashion at all times. I wouldn't be opposed to a society that essentially recognizes trans men and trans women as two additional groups.
I think that your ideas about gender are a bit reductionist in the sense that the brain is itself a sexed organ, but that's a whole other argument.

Given that we live in a world where it's still legal and safe to discriminate against trans people for being trans, where trans people need to grovel at the feet of gatekeepers just to gain access to the tools they need to be who they want to be, where a whole lot of people are determined to prevent trans kids from being treated at all, I really don't think that it's remotely fair to point a finger at trans activists and say that they've brought this on themselves.

This took longer than I hoped it would. Sorry. I hope you're still there.
>>
>>11756682
Personally I believe all body modification is mutilation, but as you said people should have autonomy so if people want to get extreme surgeries or mes with their hormones it is their choice. I disagree that transitioning is important for the well-being of trans people, as the suicide rate remains mostly the same after they transition. That doesn't mean they shouldn't have the right regardless.

>>11756690
I think 'trans' women are distinct from either gender is wrong. A white person isn't sudden;y distinct from white people and from latin people simply because he got a tan but maintains his white features. It's really more of an 'added' trait in my opinion. But ultimately the statement 'trans owmen are trans women' is the most correct. A major issue though is that trans women don't want to have that be a thing, they want to be addressed or treated entirely as real women to the point where many complain it is transphobic not to date them even.
>>
>>11756690

>"Women's bathrooms are for women
So this is where I disagree with a lot of conservative people. Seperate bathrooms weren't even created to protect women and regardless of why something is made I don't think it needs to be held on to for the sake of tradition. We can re-examine rules and see what is up. In a society where everyone has freedom what we do with that freedom shoudl come down to a vote of comfortability. So as long as everyone DOES have access to A bathroom it doesn't matter what the rules for dividing those bathrooms are as long as the majority of people agree on them. Therefore, if the majority of the country DOESN'T want trans using opposite gendered bathroom then that isn't some violation of a human right in my opinion.

That being said my personal voting preference would be that gendered bathrooms are simply a 'guideline'. Mens and womens rooms should exist but seeing as both have the privacy of a stall it shouldn't matter fi trans people use whatever restroom they wish, as well as if there is an issue or too long a line in one bathroom, the other should be free to use as well. This as a rule would also lower the awkwardness of a parent taking a child into a restroom.

So while my personal believe is that Trans people should use which ever restroom they want (after the age of majority) I do believe that people should have the legal right to vote on that.

that however is wildly different from things that should be divided based off of biology and genitals, such as athletic competition and locker rooms.
>>
>>11756804
>I think that your ideas about gender are a bit reductionist in the sense that the brain is itself a sexed organ,
You can argue that any part of the body is a sexed organ as they are all effected by our hormones, but throughout time and space if a man accidentally grew breast do to hormonal or genetic issues he was still considered a male so long as he had a penis. Particularly in our society, genitals are the defining trait.

>two additional groups
I think the major issue with this comes from the trans community its self. They want to be treated like they are 'real' women, and that is why there are a lot of arguments. In many ways they treat it like something is shameful, that being trans its self is wrong. This makes sense considering being trans is the desire to be in a different genders body altogether, it is understandable why they would want people to treat them like such, however it does not make it true. So as a result you have a large amount of trans people who don't want to be trans its self, they want to be women. IT is an interesting contradiction and i understand why they have that disdain for it, it is inherent. not because it is wrong but because of the nature of the disorder its self.
>>
>>11756804
>where a whole lot of people are determined to prevent trans kids from being treated at all
This is another point I disagree with you on, wildly. I think it is a parent's right to raise their children the way they want. They can decide what their kid wears, what haircut they get, what church they go to (if any) etc. etc.

The child is welcome to believe anything they want, but actions should be controlled by parents. Once they are eighteen they are free to make their own choices.
>>
>>11756804
>I really don't think that it's remotely fair to point a finger at trans activists and say that they've brought this on themselves.
I think it is. If a community as a whole pushes too far, there is going to be pushback. They say that Trump is our punishment for indulging liberal insanity.
>>
>>11756834
> I disagree that transitioning is important for the well-being of trans people, as the suicide rate remains mostly the same after they transition.
I'm sorry but that's just not true. There's a commonly misconstrued study by Cecilia Dhejne which some people believe says this but it actually doesn't and it even says that it doesn't. Transitioning halves suicidality in adults and practically eliminates it in the case of child transitioners who have supportive parents.

Dhejne's study, which says that it doesn't measure the effectiveness of hormonal treatments:
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0016885

Two studies that show what I mentioned:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277556010_Intervenable_factors_associated_with_suicide_risk_in_transgender_persons_A_respondent_driven_sampling_study_in_Ontario_Canada
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/134/4/696

>I think 'trans' women are distinct from either gender is wrong.
Part of the rationale is that cross-sex hormones actually do lead to a person who has some biologically masculine traits and some biologically feminine traits.

>A major issue though is that trans women don't want to have that be a thing, they want to be addressed or treated entirely as real women to the point where many complain it is transphobic not to date them even.
That's true. Some trans women have even called me transphobic for saying what I did.
>>
>>11756484
>there no was no separate gender from sex
>except in cultures there were
>but those cultures don’t count cuz i’m from a different one
On today’s episode of terf or trump supporters
>>
>>11756948
>ALL OUTLIERS THAT DONT EVEN FIT THE ACTUAL DEFINITION ARE NOW THE MOST VALID
No.
>>
>>11756948
That's like saying 'men have boobs' just because some outliers can develop them. Stop being intentionally thick.
>>
>>11756785
The point I was making is that semantic classifications of this sort are ultimately ours to do with as we please. On the other hand not legally differentiating between trans people and cis people means that trans people might not get access to facilities that are safe for them to use.

>>11756849
Do you think that it is just as safe for a cis woman to use the men's restroom as it is safe for her to use the women's restroom?

>>11756877
>You can argue that any part of the body is a sexed organ as they are all effected by our hormones, but throughout time and space if a man accidentally grew breast do to hormonal or genetic issues he was still considered a male so long as he had a penis. Particularly in our society, genitals are the defining trait.
One way or another we need a word to refer to the idea of "mental sex".

>I think the major issue with this comes from the trans community its self.
I think that society, by and large, is just as opposed to the idea of adding more genders as most trans people are.

>T is an interesting contradiction and i understand why they have that disdain for it, it is inherent. not because it is wrong but because of the nature of the disorder its self.
Were it inherent wouldn't trans people who believe as I do be an impossibility?

>>11756885
In most countries the state reserves the right to treat sick children even if their parents don't want them to be treated. The only question is what conditions make it on to the state's list.

>>11756894
I can't stomach collectivism. I don't think I ever could. It's wrong to punish people for the actions of others.
>>
>>11757076
>Do you think that it is just as safe for a cis woman to use the men's restroom as it is safe for her to use the women's restroom?
I think in a mixed gender bathroom the only fear would be going in and there being only one other man, and being in such a strange location that there aren't people on the outside of the restroom. Again, guidelines should exist, but if a man is going to molest a woman in a bathroom he isn't balked by a law saying 'hey no penises allowed'.

>One way or another we need a word to refer to the idea of "mental sex".
I disagree. If women can do / like anything men can do / like, then really there isn't a mental sex at all, just dysphoria. Despite trans people claiming that trans has nothing to do with sex but is just about your role in society, the requirement to be trans is that you have dysphoria and actively wish for the other body. so it always comes back to genitals.

>impossibility
No. The desire to rape is inherent, but most people can understand why it is wrong morally. Trans means wanting to be a women, therefore it would be more difficult to accept JUST the label of trans. IT is why most trans people do not like chasers, because it does not validate their true wish, which is to be indistinguishable from a woman. A chaser likes them for their trans-ness. That doens't mean it is impossible for a trans to date a chaser.

>The only question is what conditions make it on to the state's list.
If trans is listed as a medical issue, essentially a mental disorder, that isn't exactly going to make trans people happy.

>I can't stomach collectivism
No one likes it when it is turned on them but that is herd mentality. All oyu can do is advocate for what you think is right and balance it out with what you should reasonably expect. to push farther is going to have a reaction.
>>
>>11757098
Is there a reason why you don't consider the quote I posted to be a satisfactory answer?
>>11756682
>>11756690
>>11756804

I hold that there are multiple, coherent, conflicting definitions and that all of them are equally true.
>>
>>11757157
>Restrooms
The idea is to make it harder to assault someone. If you know that a man has no good reason to enter the restroom you're in you can treat his entrance as a warning sign. Segregation also makes it harder to peep. You can't just stand outside of someone's stall without drawing suspicion.

>I disagree. If women can do / like anything men can do / like, then really there isn't a mental sex at all.
Are you familiar with the concept of body schemas?

>Despite trans people claiming that trans has nothing to do with sex but is just about your role in society, the requirement to be trans is that you have dysphoria and actively wish for the other body. so it always comes back to genitals.
Not all people who want to medically transition also want to occupy the opposite social role.
A lot of trans people don't want to undergo SRS so it really isn't about the genitals.

>Trans means wanting to be a woman
I think that you'll find that this is the easily digestible Hollywood version of transness. Reality is more diverse than that.

>If trans is listed as a medical issue, essentially a mental disorder, that isn't exactly going to make trans people happy.
That's beside the point. Either way, gender dysphoria is already listed as a mental illness. Being trans, on the other hand, is distinct from gender dysphoria and is thus not considered to be a mental illness.

>No one likes it when it is turned on them but that is herd mentality.
I'm not talking to a herd. I'm talking to a very specific individual.
>>
>>11756448
>respect your rights in private
Just no, they don't.
>>
>>11757337
>The idea is to make it harder to assault someone.
That isn't true, if you research the history of it the division was made for the reason a woman wears a burka, essentially to just stop other men from seeing her. It was created at a time where even the break rooms were being divided between man and woman as they believed women and men shouldn't be interacting with each other outside of the family. Regardless that doesn't mean the reason can't evolve but I think you're not going to like where that goes for trans people. if it is about 'safety' the majority of people are going to want to protect women from anything else, including trans people.

>they don't want SRS
Most do, they just want a real vagina, not an inverted penis. Dysphoria is the point of it, you're going to be hard pressed to convince anyone otherwise, let alone my self.

>I'm not talking to a herd
>I'm talking to a specific individual
>about how the herd is reacting
I see.

>that's beside the point.
No it's not.
>>
>>11756448
>hate you in public, respect your rights in private
more like wish you were imprisoned in private
>>
>>11756484
>But you can't expect the majority of the world to bend to your will.
Like hell I can't.
And by the way you didn't think this up yourself. This is a talking point that's been going around.
There's nothing unreasonable about expecting others to treat us with basic human decency and not be assholes about us being trans.
>>
>>11756594
So you're OK with us as long as we consent to be treated as second class citizens and excluded normal participation in life like cis people.
No deal.
>>
>>11756441
>I'm not even transitioning
You're a cis ally? A repressor? Questioning?
>>
>>11757385
>Restrooms
There are many different solutions to this issue, including additional bathrooms.

>Most do, they just want a real vagina, not an inverted penis.
What makes you think that?

>Dysphoria is the point of it
Being trans is not defined solely by the suffering you experience as a result of being deprived of certain things. A person who transitions and is happy is no longer dysphoric but they're still trans. There are even trans people who claim to have never experienced any meaningful dysphoria.

>I see.
Here's what I wrote:
>Given that we live in a world where it's still legal and safe to discriminate against trans people for being trans, where trans people need to grovel at the feet of gatekeepers just to gain access to the tools they need to be who they want to be, where a whole lot of people are determined to prevent trans kids from being treated at all, I really don't think that it's remotely fair to point a finger at trans activists and say that they've brought this on themselves.

I spoke of fairness. If you spoke for the collective up until this point.. alright. What do *you* think? Is that fair?

>No it's not.
Huh? Whether or not trans activists like something is not related to whether or not it is just for the state to intervene in certain situations where parents medically neglect their children.

It looked like you wanted to discuss things in good faith, at least for a while, but you're being a bit weird now.
>>
>>11757443
I'm a resigned Mussolini lookalike :) I'm repressing but I have nothing but admiration for trans people who transition and wish I could do the same.
>>
>>11756598
Transphobia was part of the 2016 Republican platorm.
The Republican Party is a hate group, not a respectable political organization. I can't expect them to represent my interests.
>>11756804
>I wouldn't be opposed to a society that essentially recognizes trans men and trans women as two additional groups.
I'm opposed to this because it's just a way to exclude and marginalize trans people, to gatekeep them from being normal participants in society.
Are we going to be forced to have trans on all our ID, so we get outed wherever we go?
And how is this worse than just bending a bit to accommodate us?
What I see are complaints about how earth shattering it is to accommodate trans people. But the solutions are a total Rube Goldbergesque nightmare of added complexity that isn't going to actually help anyone, and will permanently assign trans people to an underclass.
This is totally unacceptable.
>>11756849
>what we do with that freedom shoudl come down to a vote of comfortability
Tyranny of the majority. Basic rights are not up for a vote. Under your system all it takes is for a majority to vote to discriminate and it's OK.
You put a lot of effort into trying to sound reasonable, but peel away the layers and extra verbiage and you are nowhere near being reasonable.
>>11756877
>genitals are the defining trait.
Genitals can be altered.
>>11756885
>I think it is a parent's right to raise their children the way they want.
That right is not absolute. Children have rights too and needs that must be met. Parents who fail to meet those needs or thwart any attempt to get them met have gone over the line.
>>11756894
Then we're going to have to keep pushing harder.
Don't try to appease your tormentors. They'll never be satisfied and they'll just push the baseline backward, making you have to do hard work just to get back to where you were before.
Trump is a sign that we can't be complacent and we must assert our interests. We're right because hate and bigotry are wrong.
>>
>>11757098
There is no need for a perfect definition. You can have a general definition that works most of the time, and just be flexible with those who don't fit neatly into the definition. The world won't end if there's some fuzziness and ambiguity.
>>11757157
>Despite trans people claiming that trans has nothing to do with sex
I don't say that at all. I've said before that sex dysphoria is a more accurate term. It has everything to do with sex.
>>11757157
>If trans is listed as a medical issue, essentially a mental disorder,
Medical issue is fine. It's not a mental disorder though.
>>
>>11757563
>I'm opposed to this because it's just a way to exclude and marginalize trans people, to gatekeep them from being normal participants in society.
I don't think this approach necessarily marginalizes trans people but I do accept that this is a probable outcome. In theory a society where being trans is not a big deal at all so being outed isn't an issue is possible. In practice we're painfully far from it.
Bending a bit to include trans people in existing categories is just as sensible. It was not my intent to imply otherwise.

I want to be on your side and I want to support you but I guess that I don't think that it's absolutely crucial for trans people to be thought of as normal people of the gender they identify as. Then again maybe I'm only so quick to say what I'm saying because I have no hope of ever passing. Someone who passes and lives as their chosen gender would win nothing and lose much if we restructured society according to my personal views. Is it really my place to give up something that I can't even miss? Perhaps I'm overstepping. I don't think that I've said anything untrue but I might have failed to fully consider the consequences. The trouble is that, having written all of this, my view still makes the most sense to me.
>>
>>11756448

>Rightwing: hate you in public, respect your rights in private

Oh wow I'm a wingnut now
>>
>>11757695
>Someone who passes and lives as their chosen gender would win nothing and lose much if we restructured society according to my personal views.
That is essentially where I am, though I'm out to some people in some contexts. A system that doesn't classify me as a woman would make my life worse.
For your situation what you need is more tolerance and flexibility from others. Creating extra categories is a more radical change, and would still need tolerance and flexibility to work anyway. And as I've said I do not see trying to appease the bigots as being a way to get tolerance. Don't take bigots literally when they make "if only" or "I would but" statements. They're just deflecting blame for their intolerance onto us, saying we deserve to be punished for being naughty basically. And if only we complied with their demands everything would be fine. Only that's not true. It wouldn't be fine. A compromise that relegates us to an inferior status is a defeat.
>>11757862
>Now that gay marriage is legal
For now. Keep voting like that and it won't be for very long.
From the Republican 2016 platform:
>Our laws and our government’s regulations should recognize marriage as the union of one man and one woman
You're a complete idiot.
>>
>>11757816
Public hate and private respect are incompatible.
Drop the public hate. There's no justification for it.
>>
>>11758017
There's nothing wrong with hating trannies. It's just impotent rage anyway
>>
>>11758021
There's everything wrong with it and it's unacceptable.
Even if impotent it poisons the atmosphere.
>>
>>11758030
I'm sure if you ban ALL criticism of transpeople it will all go away.
>>
>>11758036
It's about not according hate legitimacy. That it's incompatible with being a good person.
>>
>>11758056
>it's about not according hate legitimacy

It's about silencing people you don't like
>>
>>11758067
It's about setting the ground rules of civilized behavior.
>>
>>11756448
You live in a fantasy world.
>>
>>11757563
>Transphobia was part of the 2016 Republican platorm.
?

>>11757862
Hopefully Trump gets enough Supreme Court nominees to repeal gay marriage.
>>
>>11758079
I'm always gonna fight these "rules" btw.
>>
>>11758007
Honestly, the last thing I'd like to do is make your life worse. I rewrote this sentence many times but the gist is that I'm sorry for not being considerate of already integrated people like yourself. I got caught up in philosophy and forgot about the people.
>>
>>11758021
Not in a democracy
>>
>>11758091
>That same provision of law is now being used by bureaucrats — and by the current President of the United States — to impose a social and cultural revolution upon the American people by wrongly redefining sex discrimination to include sexual orientation or other categories.
>Their agenda has nothing to do with individual rights; it has everything to do with power. They are determined to reshape our schools — and our entire society — to fit the mold of an ideology alien to America’s history and traditions. Their edict to the states concerning restrooms, locker rooms, and other facilities is at once illegal, dangerous, and ignores privacy issues. We salute the several states which have filed suit against it.
They're obviously talking about trans people and restroom access.
This part:
>They are determined to reshape our schools — and our entire society — to fit the mold of an ideology alien to America’s history and traditions.
is particularly obnoxious and is referencing talking points about trans people that have been going around and that you see on this board all the time.
>>
>>11758098
It takes more energy to hate and fight for that hate than to just accept us and ignore us.
>>
>>11758122
Fair enough. But I'd caution you and everyone about getting too caught up in philosophy. Placing ideas ahead of people is a common problem that can lead to bad outcomes.
>>
I think deep down most men don't "feel that they are men" and most women don't "feel that they are women." They act in certain gendered ways but there isn't some 'feeling' of being a gender. I think if most people ended up in some John Malkovich scenario where they occupied a different genitaled body they'd just roll with it (outside of the initial gay panic that initial flirtations would cause.)
To the vast majority of the people, a person with a penis "feeling as if the penis didn't belong" makes as much sense as a person going to an opthomologist and complaining that "his mystical third eye is in pain." Heck, remember that people are deeply skeptical of fibromyalgia because it seems like bullshit.

I don't think society will ever embrace metaphysical sounding ailments and so you're probably better off becoming a stoic or something.
>>
>>11758168
That's depressing. I feel like I should vote Democrat just to spite them.
>>
>>11758213
Are you familiar with the concept of body schemas?
>>
>>11758213
>I think if most people ended up in some John Malkovich scenario where they occupied a different genitaled body they'd just roll with it.
No, they wouldn't. Losing a penis/balls in an accident is distressing to typical men. Feminists make a big deal about genitals and reproductive organs. Men hate growing breasts and mastectomy for breast cancer can be traumatic for women.
Cis people hate being persistently misgendered too.
Don't downplay the importance of sex characteristics to cis people.
>>11758240
They don't give us much choice. Voting for no one or for third parties just increases the chance of Republicans winning.
They need to drop the hate. There's no place for us among people who see us as part of an "ideology alien to America's history and traditions." We're alien to them.
>>
>>11758310
>They don't give us much choice. Voting for no one or for third parties just increases the chance of Republicans winning.
I'd never vote third party or not vote. I'm right-wing so a natural Republican voter ideologically, but when they're like this on such a personal issue, I feel like that should come above my normal politics.
>>
>>11758399
The way Trump is actually putting the platform into practice makes this an existential issue. Like there's a wall for us just waiting to be built.
>>
>>11756505
>Legal rights and social acceptance matter a great deal.

Sure if you're a retarded cuck

Real people don't give a fuck about this kind of nonsense and figure out how to live their lives in a way that makes them happy regardless of what other people think.
>>
>>11758475
>The rights you legally have literally don't matter
Amazing
>>
>>11758469
You're probably left-wing so idk how much you can relate, but for me, I see the actual wall as an existential issue for America, because immigration. So I'm choosing between saving America but sacrificing ourselves, or refusing out of spite because they won't let trans people be saved too.
>>
>>11758508
Immigration is a false choice because the Republican party has supported large scale immigration as much as the Democrats do. The demographics of this country will continue to change, and no one is going to change that. Even with a wall there will be large scale legal immigration at legal crossing and entry points. And no one is talking about providing the massive resources necessary to police visa overstays.
I just cannot see immigration being anything other than an extremely minor voting issue because you don't have the kind of choice it seems you want to have.
>>
>vote left wing it is in your best interest
>vote right wing it is in your best interest
whoever wins we loose
right wing because we do not exactly fit their social role model of the nuclear family and we are throwing monkey wrences at their social plans by merely existing
left wing appealed to us for a while because they are just as power hungry as the right wing they only care about the seat and as such they tried to reel in voters that were directly objected to the garden variety right winger
then they realized they don't have to do that shit and that by importing intolerant bronze age subhumans that throw us of buildings is far more profitable voting wise since they usually have 5+ children each family and they and their children will vote for them because benefits
so yeah you are right right wingers merely tolerate us as long as we do not catch their eye and left wingers just realized they no longer have to appeal to us and are happily throwing us off buildings
we have no allies
>>
>>11758593
>then they realized they don't have to do that shit and that by importing intolerant bronze age
They're both doing this.
Stop thinking the parties give you a meaningful choice on immigration policy. They don't.
All the Republicans have done is con people into thinking voting for them will change something. It won't.
>>
>>11758603
even if that were true it still doesn't change the initial point
we ain't got no allies
>>
>>11758546
I don't really want to talk about politics besides the trans issue but this seems fair. If neither party will do anything about immigration but the one is worse, or at least more directly bad, on the personal issue of trans people, then there's no choice really.
>>
>>11758266
I'm highly skeptical that there are many innate representations of anything complex in the brain. People from Chomsky to VS Ramachandran have popularized approaches to language and perception that seriously misinterpret the data to come up with magical conclusions. Same issues for innate body schema.

Body schemas exist but they are the result of complex learning processes occuring over long periods of time( feedback between the limb and the brain). Phantom limb is commonly found in adult amputees but only a few case studies show that phantom limb occurs for congenital pre-natal amputation. Even these can likely be explained in terms of vison biases/socialization https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0018100

It's not clear how you could have a mental representation of a opposite sex genitalia unless you were intersexed and surgicially altered as an infant without your knowledge. There isn't a Platonic Idea of Vagina in your brain.
>>
stop being a stupid overbearing bitch and learn to get along with broader society and all your problems will cease.

outrage is not a lifestyle, hon

>sorry about your dick
>>
>>11758811
I don't understand how you're interpreting that study because I don't see what you're seeing. They didn't include amelics who did have phantom limb sensations, just those without it. And the idea that there's an interaction between innate structures and environmental stimuli is not new. Our brains are prewired for to process visual stimuli from the retina. But if you're born blind those neural structures don't develop fully.
In the study they said this:
>Thus, the absence of a representation of the missing limb in the motor cortex does not exclude the possibility that amelics possess a body schema that includes some form of sensorimotor representation of all four limbs.
They aren't ruling anything out.
And with genitals it gets more complicated because of homologous tissues, especially with external genitalia.
But I do think it works a bit different with mtfs and ftms. As an mtf, I didn't have any phantom sensations. I had a sense of the dick and balls being wrong and abhorrent. And I had a desire to be on the receiving end of penetrative sex. It was less a sense of something missing than of something there that didn't belong. Now after SRS I had no phantom sensations at all.
FtMs seem more likely to feel they're missing something and have a desire to penetrate.
FtMs also seem to like a T fueled sex drive whereas for many mtfs it's annoying or wasn't even that strong to begin with.
Even with language it seems pretty clear that we have an innate predisposition to learn language, and that human languages follow certain patterns. We all seem to have the potential to learn any language if exposed early enough even without explicit teaching. Kids can pick it up through mere exposure and seem to be able to recognize patterns innately.
Overall it seems we have innate predispositions. But you are right that there are learning processes and feedbacks that reinforce patterns.
>>11758894
Your requirements for "getting along" are probably unacceptable.
>>
>>11758489

and what legal rights do you not have that I do, tranner?
>>
>>11759340
>>11758811
How compatible are body schema explanations with Blanchard's typology?

I'm thinking one or both types could affect body schemas to, perhaps in a dysphoric feedback loop.
>>
>>11759350
The main one is the right to not be denied due process and equal protection of the laws as a result of us taking necessary steps, like transitioning, to manage our medical condition.
>>
>>11759618
I am anti-Blanchardian. I think the typology is redundant to sexual orientation. And the typology's ideas about etiology are pure unproven speculation. All it does is suggest an interaction between sexual orientation and transgender issues.
>>
>>11759716
>I am anti-Blanchardian.
Okay but how compatible is a schema theory with the typology, not necessarily the schema theory you subscribe to?
>>
ITT people prove op's point
>>
>>11759742
I guess it would be compatible. Going along with the typology strictly for the sake of argument, these schemas could explain why an HSTS is different from gay males, why someone with AGP becomes a tranner rather than just being a crossdresser, and why ftms aren't just butch lesbians.
>>
>>11759806
What I don't understand is why the haters don't get tired of hating. It's more work to hate than to just live and let live. Why spend time and energy hating when there are so many more productive things you could do with your time? It makes no sense. And the people I know irl who are full of hate never seem to be very happy.
>>
>>11759809
>these schemas could explain why an HSTS is different from gay males, why someone with AGP becomes a tranner rather than just being a crossdresser,
This is what I'm wondering. Would the schema come first before the dysphoria, or would the dysphoria cause the schema? Maybe they're the same thing?

I feel like a schema could well me what causes a gay male to become an HSTS. For her then, the scheme is or causes the dysphoria. But for an AGP, perhaps there's something in how much of an AGP she is that separates AGP trangirls from "cis" crossdressers, so the schema comes second to AGPs who are "AGP enough" for dysphoria. But this is all just speculation off the top of my head.
>>
>>11759953
I would think the schema is part of the underlying transness stemming from brain organization during the prenatal period. I'd say the dysphoria arises from the incongruence between schemas and anatomy. Body changes during puberty exacerbate incongruence between body and schema which is why dysphoria is often only recognized when puberty hits and, tends to get worse at that point, and is why desisters vs persisters get sorted out quickly after puberty starts.
"AGP" is one of the many ways gynephilic sexuality can manifest, amplified by the influence of testosterone. This can develop in someone without a trans schema. But if you do have the trans schema and you're a gynephile, you're going to be highly prone to develop what gets labeled AGP. But it raises the question of whether what non-trans AGP crossdressers have and AGP trans have is really the same underlying thing, or if it just looks the same. Similar neural circuity might get activated for different underlying reasons.
Anyway like I said I don't believe in Blanchardianism so I don't really want to get too deep into this.
>>
>>11760180
Schemas develop prenatally and not over life?

I don't agree with the "AGP is gynephilia on T" theory but why do you think a trans schema makes gynephiles likely to become AGP? What do you think makes the gynephilia of "cis" crossdressers also become AGP?

>But it raises the question of whether what non-trans AGP crossdressers have and AGP trans have is really the same underlying thing, or if it just looks the same.
How do you tell whether similar looking phenomena are really one or two?

Thank you for explaining this btw. I'm not familiar with the schema idea but I want to grasp it.
>>
>>11756441
Trannies should be thrown into an asylum until they feel better or commit suicide.
>>
>>11760365
I'd rather not delve into this more because I'm really just speculating and theorizing.
I'll finish up with this. A trans schema will predispose you to thinking of yourself as a woman. If you're sexually attracted to women and you're predisposed to think of yourself as a woman, then I could see them interacting in a way that comes out as what gets labeled AGP - sexualization of your self image as a woman. An androphile wouldn't be prone to that sexualization of the self image due to a lack of attraction to women.
For the non-trans crossdresser who gets sexually aroused by it maybe it's a kink like the endless list of other kinks out there with a similar cause.
I haven't put any effort into studying kinks and fetishes, and I'm not clued in to how the non-trans CD community operates. But what I see there are several factors involved that can interact in different ways to produce the types of behavior and feelings that we see out in the world.
>>
>>11756594
Spotted the transphobe masquerading as ally, I bet you don't support puberty blockers either, also why use real woman when you could use bio woman or female
>>
>>11760589
>A trans schema will predispose you to thinking of yourself as a woman.
No, it will predispose you to thinking of yourself as female. It's an explanation for physical dysphoria, not identity.

>If you're sexually attracted to women and you're predisposed to think of yourself as a woman, then I could see them interacting in a way that comes out as what gets labeled AGP - sexualization of your self image as a woman.
Except why would gynephilia make you sexualize yourself just because you're a woman? And why don't cis lesbians or straight transguys experience the same?

I do think it's revealing that someone who doesn't agree with Blanchard is unaware of how to distinguish different phenomena that look superficially similar.
>>
>>11756441
I’m crying. I love you so much.
>>
>>11760887
ftms do get kinks with slutty female clothes.
Don't know about lesbians but they're not on T.
Whether or not you went through natal puberty might affect things too.
And I've already said I'm speculating and I've already pushed way farther into this than I'm comfortable with. I'm done.
>>
>>11758811
The poster you replied to here. Sorry, I went to bed. I hope you'll read this eventually.
Well, what do you mean when you say innate? I don't want to pick on you in particular, here, since this is a problem with how people use the word innate in general, but if someone is radically predisposed toward developing in a certain way and this sort of development can't be undone the distinction between them being born with a certain condition and developing that condition is largely inconsequential.

You mentioned phantom limbs. Some people have supernumerary phantom limbs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernumerary_phantom_limb
>Supernumerary phantom limb is a condition where the affected individual believes and receives sensory information from limbs of the body that do not actually exist, and never have existed, in contradistinction to phantom limbs, which appear after an individual has had a limb removed from the body and still receives input from it.

I think that this condition, along with BIID, does show that people have some sort of an internal sense of how their body is supposed to be and that this body map can develop in strange ways even if a person's actual body has never suffered trauma.
My position is less that trans people are necessarily born with a sex-flipped "body map" and more that they're predisposed toward developing the "wrong" body map and, as of now, there isn't a way to "correct" this.
>>
>>11758811
>>11761712
This is how I usually explain my view:
>Here's how I think things might work: you're born with a condition that, at some point, makes you feel a life-consuming need to have a body of the other sex (or predisposes you toward being more likely to do so). Anatomic dysphoria. Growing up you learn that people with bodies of that sort are called men/women. You conclude that, since you feel the need to have a body of that sort and disassociate from your own body, you must be a man/woman yourself. You're socialized with certain ideas about how a man/woman ought to be and relate to others. Internalizing these lessons, you start feeling bad about how you're not like that and are not even perceived the way you're "supposed" to be perceived. Social dysphoria, which stems from anatomic dysphoria but is clearly not biological or innate. A trans person is not born feeling like they're "meant to be of the other gender", but most end up feeling like that in time as their biologically driven desire to have a cross-sex body interacts with their socialization.

Now, this is not necessarily the only sort of gender dysphoria.
>I've reached this weird hybrid position where I think that anatomic gender dysphoria has a biological cause and usually begets social gender dysphoria because we live in a world where bodies are tightly tied to gender BUT I also think that it is possible to develop social gender dysphoria as a result of strongly favoring a certain set of gender roles and being told that you're not supposed to like them because your body says you should like the other set of gender roles. This, in turn, causes you to feel dysphoric about your body but only as an extension of your social dysphoria. I used to think that the biological sort of dysphoria was the only type until I repeatedly ran into people who insisted that they only felt dysphoric about social stuff and only medically transitioned to look the part.
>>
>>11758894
Who, here, is outraged? You couldn't write a single line without throwing in an insult lol.
>>
>>11760887
>No, it will predispose you to thinking of yourself as female. It's an explanation for physical dysphoria, not identity.
See
>>11761730

>Except why would gynephilia make you sexualize yourself just because you're a woman?
You're attracted to women.
You want to be a woman.
People generally want to be hot.
You imagine yourself as the hot girl you'd like to be.
By definition you find this girl attractive.
You don't fully internalize this image of yourself as being you since your body is super different.
You get turned on by the girl.
You start conflating imagining being a girl with being aroused.

>And why don't cis lesbians or straight transguys experience the same?
Cis lesbians don't need to imagine themselves as hot girls who look nothing like them all the damn time. They're not ashamed of being girls either so the whole repression part doesn't come into play.
https://pastebin.com/jpqj2wiX
>>
>>11761730
>BUT I also think that it is possible to develop social gender dysphoria as a result of strongly favoring a certain set of gender roles and being told that you're not supposed to like them because your body says you should like the other set of gender roles. This, in turn, causes you to feel dysphoric about your body but only as an extension of your social dysphoria.
This is HSTS.

>I used to think that the biological sort of dysphoria was the only type until I repeatedly ran into people who insisted that they only felt dysphoric about social stuff and only medically transitioned to look the part.
A common story is AGPs not understanding HSTSs and even defining trans or dysphoria in ways that exclude HSTS.
>>
>>11761811
>People generally want to be hot.
>You imagine yourself as the hot girl you'd like to be.
Why don't cis lesbians and cis gays do this then? You kind of handwave "don't nee to imagine themselves as people who look nothing like them" but doesn't that contradict the whole premise that people want to be hot and therefore AGPs imagine ourselves as hotter people?

>You don't fully internalize this image of yourself as being you since your body is super different.
>You get turned on by the girl.
>You start conflating imagining being a girl with being aroused.
How do you tell the two are being conflated when there's no indication the arousal at the girl and the desire to be her were separate in the first place?

And what about bi and straight AGPs? How are can AGP exist in someone attracted to guys if it comes from getting your erotic target confused the way you say?

>They're not ashamed of being girls either so the whole repression part doesn't come into play.
Why do you need to be ashamed and repressed to be AGP?
>>
>>11762009
I wrote an extremely extensive account of why I think the typology can't be true. Chances are that you've already seen it.
https://pastebin.com/vkxVjAnh

>>11762287
>Why don't cis lesbians and cis gays do this then? You kind of handwave "don't nee to imagine themselves as people who look nothing like them" but doesn't that contradict the whole premise that people want to be hot and therefore AGPs imagine ourselves as hotter people?
I don't understand why you think that this is a handwave. Trans girls want to imagine themselves as girls. They don't have the bodies of girls so they need to imagine themselves as girls who are not them. The ideal self of most people is attractive. Girls who look like girls don't need to imagine themselves as other girls. That's not their default mode of interaction with themselves.

>How do you tell the two are being conflated when there's no indication the arousal at the girl and the desire to be her were separate in the first place?
There is such an indication. Follow the link at the beginning of this post.

>And what about bi and straight AGPs? How are can AGP exist in someone attracted to guys if it comes from getting your erotic target confused the way you say?
This account explains why gynephiles are more likely to develop this fetish than androphiles. The link I posted in the post you replied to contains the explanation for why trans people of all orientations often sexualize the idea of being of the sex they identify with.

>Why do you need to be ashamed and repressed to be AGP?
I can count the number of MTFs I know who are turned on by this stuff and aren't ashamed of it on one hand.
>>
>>11762707
>The ideal self of most people is attractive.
The ideal self of most people is themselves attractive. AGPs ideal self is who they're attracted to.

>I can count the number of MTFs I know who are turned on by this stuff and aren't ashamed of it on one hand.
So you're just assuming correlation = causation and that your handful of exceptions magically come from nowhere? Or perhaps you think they're lying about not being ashamed?
>>
>>11759618
It's completely incompatible, the whole body schema theory relies on gender identity being inborn while blanchardianism relies on it being learned since gays are supposed to have the same biological basis as HSTS and AGPTS are supposed to have the same biological basis as transvestites

Of course 4chan blanchardianism has little to do with actual blanchard ideas so you could make up some third theory to unify the two
>>
>>11765581
>The ideal self of most people is themselves attractive. AGPs ideal self is who they're attracted to.
This response is inane in face of what I wrote here
>>11761811

>So you're just assuming correlation = causation and that your handful of exceptions magically come from nowhere? Or perhaps you think they're lying about not being ashamed?
What the hell are you even going on about? All I said is that most MTFs are deeply ashamed of having this fetish.
>>
>>11765683
>...the whole body schema theory relies on gender identity being inborn
Not necessarily. See the first paragraph here:
>>11761730
>>
>>11765720
But inborn anatomic dysphoria would mean AGPTS and cis AGP are separate phenomena which is against blanchard theory. Having two different types of gender dysphoria does not necessarily make things blanchardian


Also on a personal note I used to have the exact same views like your post until I started switching between purely anatomical and purely social dysphoria and now I'm not sure anymore really
>>
>>11765707
>>They're not ashamed of being girls either so the whole repression part doesn't come into play.
>Why do you need to be ashamed and repressed to be AGP?
>>
>>11765763
>>11765720
Unless I misunderstood the post I'm replying to and body schemas in this context doesn't necessarily mean the whole theory about gender dysphoria being similar to phantom limbs in people born without them and anon simply meant body schemas existing in trans people then I guess you could assume fixating on AGP fantasies creates a wrong body schema and it would still make sense
>>
>>11765763
>But inborn anatomic dysphoria would mean AGPTS and cis AGP are separate phenomena which is against blanchard theory. Having two different types of gender dysphoria does not necessarily make things blanchardian
Oh, I was just pointing out that body schema theories don't necessarily state that schema trajectories are set at birth or whatever.

>Also on a personal note I used to have the exact same views like your post until I started switching between purely anatomical and purely social dysphoria and now I'm not sure anymore really
Well, dysphoria tends to be cyclical, right? What if we're looking at two different cycles?

>>11765768
I didn't say that, exactly. I don't think cis men develop this fetish because they're ashamed or repressed. I said that shame is a factor in the case of trans girls. I went over why in that link I posted. We can't hold this conversation if you haven't followed it and read the page it points to.
>>
>>11756441
Surprisingly no one has ever openly insulted me for being trans. I think recently i started “passing” better, and that DEFINITELY makes people fuck with you less. It’s all just a LARP, but a believable LARP is always 10x better than a bad LARP.
>>
>>11765837
People generally don't like saying shit to your face unless they're absolutely sure you won't talk back
>>
>>11765954
Oh. I won’t ever “talk back” i’ll just get really sassy and sarcastic.
>>
>>11756594
>>11756804
This is classic "separate but equal" thinking.
>>11756441
OP I don't think most people care. IRL everyone is always nice to me except black people.
>>
>>11765954
You can tell if someone is transphobic or not by how they act towards you, they don't have to be literally making attack helicopter jokes



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.