You are making a huge assumption that people who wish to change their gender are acting out of a biological need rather than a psychological one.No, I am not. If you read the ;post about my transgender friend you'll see that I recognized her psychological need. What is wrong with changing gender because of psychological need? Because it is invasive. Surgery should only be a last resort. It usally is. I can't believe we actually agree on anything. So is it right for someone to subject their body to butchery rather than try to explore their deep-seated psychological issues? If you ask me it's a cop-out and the politically correct liberal elite just make things worse by encouraging this self-indulgent nonsense.
So is it right for someone to subject their body to butchery rather than try to explore their deep-seated psychological issues? If you ask me it's a cop-out and the politically correct liberal elite just make things worse by encouraging this self-indulgent nonsense.I've asked this several times and no one has given a direct answer. By what ethical theory do you justify denying people the right to choose their gender?
I fought about this so hard in the past, but I guess this is just not the group to have this discussion with. Is it semantics? Maybe the definition of gender isn't the same definition as a person sex. Ok I get that, but I think now the rules have changed. You can now define your gender, and anyone who does not accept your definition is an intolerant hater who needs to be shut down for their hateful speech. I tried warning everyone about this, but here we are. Do you move forward with the thinking that gender is a subjective concept, or is there any standard we can all live by?Who would be in charge of stopping people from defining his own gender? Should it be against the law for anyone to feel as if his gender does fit his genitalia? Would you have police checking everyone to be sure everyone is dressing and using toilet facilities according to their gender and citing them if they do not? Just how far would you take this? Since you asked, gender is something that is applied to nouns not people. "Sex" is the word to use for people. I, myself, do not like using the word "gender" instead of "sex" but the semi-illiterates have won yet again! It's a battle not worth fighting. I've given up. Quite I get this argument, but the idea of gender is getting tied to sex. What's really getting crazy now is that people are starting to add new genders. There's not just a binary view of gender, but now an endless number of possibilities that a persons gender can now be. Gender by the modern liberal thinking a completely non-binary. It's still binary, biologically, but here is now recognition that "gender" identity is not binary. A person who identifies as the opposite sex and even those who go through "gender reassignmemt" surgery will always have the DNA of the "gender" he or she was born with. Sexual identity is in the brain, not in the genitalia and not in one's DNA. Lois
So is it right for someone to subject their body to butchery rather than try to explore their deep-seated psychological issues? If you ask me it's a cop-out and the politically correct liberal elite just make things worse by encouraging this self-indulgent nonsense.I've asked this several times and no one has given a direct answer. By what ethical theory do you justify denying people the right to choose their gender? The ethics of respecting what nature intended.
I fought about this so hard in the past, but I guess this is just not the group to have this discussion with. Is it semantics? Maybe the definition of gender isn't the same definition as a person sex. Ok I get that, but I think now the rules have changed. You can now define your gender, and anyone who does not accept your definition is an intolerant hater who needs to be shut down for their hateful speech. I tried warning everyone about this, but here we are. Do you move forward with the thinking that gender is a subjective concept, or is there any standard we can all live by?Who would be in charge of stopping people from defining his own gender? Should it be against the law for anyone to feel as if his gender does fit his genitalia? Would you have police checking everyone to be sure everyone is dressing and using toilet facilities according to their gender and citing them if they do not? Just how far would you take this? Since you asked, gender is something that is applied to nouns not people. "Sex" is the word to use for people. I, myself, do not like using the word "gender" instead of "sex" but the semi-illiterates have won yet again! It's a battle not worth fighting. I've given up. Quite I get this argument, but the idea of gender is getting tied to sex. What's really getting crazy now is that people are starting to add new genders. There's not just a binary view of gender, but now an endless number of possibilities that a persons gender can now be. Gender by the modern liberal thinking a completely non-binary. It's still binary, biologically, but here is now recognition that "gender" identity is not binary. A person who identifies as the opposite sex and even those who go through "gender reassignmemt" surgery will always have the DNA of the "gender" he or she was born with. Sexual identity is in the brain, not in the genitalia and not in one's DNA. Lois In other words, 'fashionable'.
So is it right for someone to subject their body to butchery rather than try to explore their deep-seated psychological issues? If you ask me it's a cop-out and the politically correct liberal elite just make things worse by encouraging this self-indulgent nonsense.I've asked this several times and no one has given a direct answer. By what ethical theory do you justify denying people the right to choose their gender? The ethics of respecting what nature intended. I'm sorry. I don't recognize that ethical theory. Would that fall under Virtue Ethics? No. Maybe Utilitarianism? No. Deontology perhaps? No again. Naw. Most likely you do not know the meaning of "ethical theory," just like the other people in this thread who think thier biases override other people's right to make their own choices.
So is it right for someone to subject their body to butchery rather than try to explore their deep-seated psychological issues? If you ask me it's a cop-out and the politically correct liberal elite just make things worse by encouraging this self-indulgent nonsense.I've asked this several times and no one has given a direct answer. By what ethical theory do you justify denying people the right to choose their gender? Is gender defined by bodily features or state of mind? Even in other mammals, homosexual or transgender behavior can be observed. My female chihuahua likes to hump one of my male cats. They both seem to enjoy the experience. But IMO, human brains are not necessarily a perfect match for the body and I can see how a male or female could feel trapped in a body with which they don't identify. After all it is our minds that identifies "individuality".
So is it right for someone to subject their body to butchery rather than try to explore their deep-seated psychological issues? If you ask me it's a cop-out and the politically correct liberal elite just make things worse by encouraging this self-indulgent nonsense.I've asked this several times and no one has given a direct answer. By what ethical theory do you justify denying people the right to choose their gender? The ethics of respecting what nature intended. I'm sorry. I don't recognize that ethical theory. Would that fall under Virtue Ethics? No. Maybe Utilitarianism? No. Deontology perhaps? No again. Naw. Most likely you do not know the meaning of "ethical theory," just like the other people in this thread who think thier biases override other people's right to make their own choices. How about: "respecting one's body and not bowing to current fashion-statements?"
So is it right for someone to subject their body to butchery rather than try to explore their deep-seated psychological issues? If you ask me it's a cop-out and the politically correct liberal elite just make things worse by encouraging this self-indulgent nonsense.I've asked this several times and no one has given a direct answer. By what ethical theory do you justify denying people the right to choose their gender? Is gender defined by bodily features or state of mind? Even in other mammals, homosexual or transgender behavior can be observed. My female chihuahua likes to hump one of my male cats. They both seem to enjoy the experience. But IMO, human brains are not necessarily a perfect match for the body and I can see how a male or female could feel trapped in a body with which they don't identify. After all it is our minds that identifies "individuality". The question is: does the body agree with the mind? There are people who think they are Napoleon. Should we take them seriously?
So is it right for someone to subject their body to butchery rather than try to explore their deep-seated psychological issues? If you ask me it's a cop-out and the politically correct liberal elite just make things worse by encouraging this self-indulgent nonsense.You don't seem to notice that we're agreeing with you about surgery. Invasively changing your body's equipment should be a last resort, just like cosmetic surgery. But at the same time, have you ever tried to talk a woman out of getting her boobs enhanced, because she thinks it's "fashionable"? Do you think you have the moral right to tell her, no, you can't do that, as long as there's a surgeon willing to perform the procedure and it doesn't threaten her health? (Well you do have the right to tell her your opinion, but ultimately it's her choice.) For the most part, we're not talking about surgery. I thought we were talking about psychological gender reassignment. How does that not respect "what nature intended"?
So is it right for someone to subject their body to butchery rather than try to explore their deep-seated psychological issues? If you ask me it's a cop-out and the politically correct liberal elite just make things worse by encouraging this self-indulgent nonsense.I've asked this several times and no one has given a direct answer. By what ethical theory do you justify denying people the right to choose their gender? Is gender defined by bodily features or state of mind? Even in other mammals, homosexual or transgender behavior can be observed. My female chihuahua likes to hump one of my male cats. They both seem to enjoy the experience. But IMO, human brains are not necessarily a perfect match for the body and I can see how a male or female could feel trapped in a body with which they don't identify. After all it is our minds that identifies "individuality". The question is: does the body agree with the mind? There are people who think they are Napoleon. Should we take them seriously? That's not the point. They take themselves seriously.
I'm on the same side as Lois and Darron. I do admit to feeling a little uncomfortable with the idea of "transgendered" people, who define their sex by their state of mind, by the way they happen to feel on any given day. And at the same, I have to look within myself and admit that I can understand where they're coming from. I write a lot of fan fiction myself, and there are times when I have to "get into the head" of female characters. I can see the appeal in that. If I met a transgendered person, I'm not entirely sure I'd recognize him or her unless they came out and said so. Isn't it really such a horrible thing? Freedom to be who you are -- that's what Humanism stands for.I'm actually ok that a person wants to define who they are for themselves. It gets sticky when you have people who are demanding that the rest of society accept these labels. Now we're up to something like 60 genders where people now can define what they are, and anyone who disagrees is an intolerant bigot. This is where I struggle with the left. I grew up pretty far left for the majority of my life, but I started to realize that not all things are about accepting change. It doesn't make you a better person to say that all new ideas are good ideas. DarronS showed a great example of what the left has become. It's now a label monster who tags anyone who doesn't follow the group mentality as a bigot, racist, fascist etc... Liberalism has become such a hostile group, that they've resorted to yelling, and attacking anyone who disagrees. You are painting liberals with too broad a brush. SOME liberals may be "label monsters" SOME liberals are hostile, SOME liberals have resorted to yelling and attacking anyone who disagrees with them--just like SOME conservatives do. All groups have a lunatic fringe. We shouldn't be defining groups by their extremist element. Lois
And to answer your original question, of course he should. This is hard for a lot if people to understand but not everyone is born 100 percent cent male or female. Some are born with both sex organs and doctors have to decide on a gender immediately. Some people are born with gender specific sexual organs but for various reasons are psychologically the opposite gender. A better question is, "How can you ethically justify forcing genders roles on people?"Not a lot different from forcing sexual orientation on people. Fortunately Western society is in the process of becoming more enlightened about sexual orientation. Maybe they'll become more enlightened about gender identification. How people identify their gender is no different than how people identify their sexual orientation. We force people into preconceived molds at society's peril. The question should be: "Why shouldn't people get to define their gender?" Lois
That is a personal choice. What gives you the right to prevent other people from making that choice?Ok so you argue that sex is invalid, but definition of gender is all that matters. Does this mean that a person should be able to label themselves as any gender they like? Yes, of course. And what's it to you? That is exactly what's going on. People are now adding new labels to what their gender is. So far there are about 60 genders (and counting) that people are making claims to such as hirs, queer, fairy, cis, etc... Does this really sound like a solution? Nobody has said it's a "solution" to anything. It's a fact of life. Suck it up. People identify themselves in many ways, and even you do this. Why should some people be denied how they identify themselves? Because other people are made "uncomfortable" by it? Some people will be made uncomfortable by anything people do. I'm uncomfortable about bigoted opinions about people's rights to self identity. Should my discomfort be ignored?
S.N. won’t allow me to go back and insert some paragraph breaks for a bit more clarity. So here:
Nobody has said it's a "solution" to anything. It's a fact of life. Suck it up. People identify themselves in many ways, and even you do this. Why should some people be denied how they identify themselves? Because other people are made "uncomfortable" by it? Some people will be made uncomfortable by anything people do. I'm uncomfortable about bigoted opinions about people's rights to self identity. Should my discomfort be ignored?
Wow, now S.N. deleted my previous post, the original #139 :gulp: - that’s interesting. :-/
What’s missing is that I’ve pretty much ignored this thread because the title question seemed so off-kilter.
I feel fortunately finally looking at it today because Lois’ comment put words to my discomfort and sense dismissal towards this thread.
Wow, now S.N. deleted my previous post, the original #139 :gulp: - that's interesting. :-/ What's missing is that I've pretty much ignored this thread because the title question seemed so off-kilter. I feel fortunately finally looking at it today because Lois' comment put words to my discomfort and sense dismissal towards this thread.Who is SN? edit Or maybe what is S.N.?
Wow, now S.N. deleted my previous post, the original #139 :gulp: - that's interesting. :-/ What's missing is that I've pretty much ignored this thread because the title question seemed so off-kilter. I feel fortunately finally looking at it today because Lois' comment put words to my discomfort and sense (of) dismissal towards this thread.Who is SN? edit Or maybe what is S.N.?Spam, um,... er,... N@%i In past years it seemed to stay politely in the background - these days it's become an arbitrary, if not capricious presence. Though I'm reassured that others are having similar issues to what I've experienced.
Wow, now S.N. deleted my previous post, the original #139 :gulp: - that's interesting. :-/ What's missing is that I've pretty much ignored this thread because the title question seemed so off-kilter. I feel fortunately finally looking at it today because Lois' comment put words to my discomfort and sense (of) dismissal towards this thread.Who is SN? edit Or maybe what is S.N.?Spam, um,... er,... N@%i In past years it seemed to stay politely in the background - these days it's become an arbitrary, if not capricious presence. Though I'm reassured that others are having similar issues to what I've experienced. I thought it was bad when I posted when Jerry was here, but now it just seems to be plain absurd.
I’ve noticed that when the Spam Nazi rejects a correction and “discards the post” the original, unedited post remains. It’s only the correction that is discarded. One option is to go back to the post you were responding to, hit “quote” again and write your corrected text as a new post. Label it “CORRECTED TEXT.” That’s the only way I know of to handle the Spam Nazi. He doesn’t invade new posts, only edited ones.