I have no problem with transgendered people wanting to be called whatever gender it is they identify with, but they really need to stop taking offence at how awkward it is for everyone else to figure it out in the border cases. Heck, there are some pretty gender neutral looking people I've met who have had no surgeries.
It's possible you're generally commenting rather than directing that at me specifically, in which case you can ignore this, but I don't think I overly took offense. I pointed something out that seemed, to me, to be disrespectful and have been trying to engage in a conversation about why I feel that way.
I'm not so sure that holding a different definition of the word "girl" than you do is really disrespectful. I get what you're saying but you've got to understand that to the population at large there is a difference between someone born biologically female and someone who surgically removed their genitals and started hormone therapy (or whatever other combination of measures you took to legally change your gender). For example, you never could and never will bear a child. Not that all women can, but they've generally got a higher likelihood of being able to do so. So people like to have different words for those different things. You've got to face the music, to Joe six-pack you're not a girl, you're a post-op transsexual.
I agree with everything you've said here. As I said, I don't think Vega was intending the language to be disrespectful or hurtful. Likewise, I understood exactly what she meant, and Vega was using an culturally-understood phrasing when said, "...she wasn't really a girl."
However, I think you raise the point I'm trying to make by saying, "Not that all women [can bear a child]..." The fact is, any individual definition of 'girl' (or 'boy') will ultimately boil down to "I knows it when I sees it," because there are so many edge cases: definitions of genetics get tricky with people who have XXY or XYY instead of XX or XY, definitions of childbearing get difficult (as you mention) with people who are infertile, definitions of how one was raised get confusing with trans people (and other definition-straddling or -crossing individuals), definitions based on appearance get muddled with anyone not confirming to strict gendered appearances (and people with AIS), etc, etc.
As such, what I'm putting forth is that it's most respectful to use someone's own self-identification when labeling someone a man or a woman.
I get what you're trying to say but I also feel like you're trying to strongarm others into changing the definitions of their words.
Oh, completely - I'm 100% trying to get people to change their definitions of 'man' and 'woman' (and 'boy' and 'girl' and so on and so forth). I'd like to think I'm trying to convince them rather than strongarm them, but I suppose that'd just be a different semantic argument.::grin::
If somebody doesn't think you're "really a girl" and you take offense to that, you're just picking a fight over semantics. Go ahead and wait until they say something really inflammatory and hateful before you bust out the righteous indignation, you'll win more hearts and minds.
Well, definitions are important. I identify as a Jew, too, and I would be offended if someone else said I wasn't "really" a Jew because I don't observe the sabbath or keep kosher (or a number of other things...I said I was a Jew, not a particularly observant one). I don't think I was in the wrong (or, as a note to moderators, trolling...) when I said it's "...not generally considered respectful language [to say someone who is trans isn't "really" a girl]." You're right, I should wait until there's overt transphobia before being similarly divisive, butI don't think I was being righteously indignant in what I said. At least I certainly wasn't trying to be. But pointing out that I'll ruffle feathers by sticking up for myself doesn't mean I shouldn't.
I appreciate your apology, and your comment didn't (in and of itself) offend, just the moderation. I definitely didn't get the reference and it would appear, according to Suzanne Vega herself (scroll down to interview excerpt), the song was certainly written with good intent.
All that said, and having nothing to do with your comment, I'm not thrilled with Vega saying, "...I found out she wasn't really a girl," (emphasis added) in reference to the song's inspiration. Again, I don't think Vega is coming from a transphobic or hateful place, I just want to point out that that's not generally considered respectful language. (This isn't directly specifically at you, MichaelSmith, just more a general note...)
-Trillian
PS - I know I've been spoiled by the Internet, because I'm frustrated I wasn't able to imediately find an audio and/or video version of As Girls Go, so I could check it out, with a 30 second Google search...
I asked myself the same question. In all fairness, that is how she signed off in the link included in TFS, but I still think its inclusion wasn't strictly needed for the "News for Nerds" aspect of the story....
I knew, coming into this thread, that the comments would just make me feel great, but I have a masochistic streak, so I did it anyway.
I don't know, MichaelSmith, if you intended your comment as tongue-in-cheek or not (giving you the benefit of the doubt, I'll assume not) but - as a trans woman - I'm disappointed that the two moderations your post has received so far are 'Funny.' It's A) transphobic to assume MichaelSmith meant the comment as a joke and B) not particularly funny even if it was intended as a joke...
Sorry for the typo in the second sentence. My girlfriend sat down in her bra and panties in front of the air conditioner as I was writing that.
As someone who is undergoing a dry spell following a nasty breakup, I speak for single queer women everywhere* when I say get off Slashdot and hit that!
-Trillian
* And probably single straight guys, too. And probably some straight guys who aren't single. And hell, queer girls, too. In fact, on behalf of people everywhere who are fantasizing about a better sex life for themselves, get off Slashdot and hit that!. Do it for us, if not for yourself.
to be used for starting sentences (or paragraphs) that are continued in the body of the post.
(Which isn't to say I disagree with your post, I just really dislike the habit of starting a sentence or a thought in the subject line...It makes for more a more confusing, disjointed reading of the post.)
Thanks for the reply! And kodus for working to educate yourself.
You're right, hitching T to LGB doesn't always help the GLB 'cause.' And it's worth noting that (as some other people in the thread have pointed out) not everyone who identifies as GLB is thrilled about the inclusion of T. Or, at the very least, is willing to ditch T when politically expedient. For example, while fighting to pass the Employee Non-Discrimination Act last year, language protecting trans people from discrimination was was dropped with the goal of making a more 'palatable' bill. Unfortunately, the bill still failed to pass... I'd argue that 'taking what we can get' is not a good way to further civil rights goals, and that people usually don't 'come back' for the stragglers later (as proponents of the non-trans-inclusive ENDA claimed they would do).
I've drifted off-topic, but I wanted to point out that while GLB is often lumped with T, it doesn't have to be, and reasons for not lumping them together can be both positive and negative. And I'd actually agree that putting them all together is only altruistic in the sense that (relatively) common hardships can foster alliances.
I don't think what you're saying is intended to be hurtful, and it's not offtopic. I don't even know that I think you should have held your tongue. All that said, it's still hurtful to hear, as someone who is trans.
I'll try to use an analogy to express myself more clearly. If someone came into my office with both legs amputated, I'd probably be a little creeped out. I certainly wouldn't want both of my legs amputated. But I'd try not to let that person know how I felt, because I would assume saying them would be hurtful.
As someone who is trans, I can understand you feeling uneasy about someone medically modifying their body. I can even understand you never wanting to do it yourself. And, as I said, I don't even think your comment was particularly off topic or 'wrong.' I just want to make you aware that there are trans people around (on Slashdot and in real life...) and casual comments can be painful.
I identify as trans, and figured I'd voice my opinion (although it looks like I'm not the only trans person to reply to your post). It does sound like you're getting a lot of replies (some informative and polite, some less so...) so no worries if you're not able to respond to this. Likewise, while your post wasn't with the most respectful language, you also expressed your ignorance and asked for information, which I do have to respect. And I do want to include an obligatory "These are my opinions. Where possible, I'll try to point out what my thinking is versus 'mainstream' thought, if they differ."
With that out of the way, lets get started...First, let me go briefly over what being transgender is usually thought to mean, as well as what it means for me. Then, I'll cover why GLBT are lumped together, and then I'll get into why they should or shouldn't be.
The cliche definition for transgender, "A woman in a man's body" (or vice versa) is a little over-simplified. More broadly, transgender means someone who has a gender identity (i.e. how they see themself as a man or a woman, somewhere in between, or something else entirely) that does not match the gender they were assigned at birth. For myself, I was raised as male, have (as far as I know) XY of chromosomes, went through masculanizing puberty, etc. However, I see myself as a woman. And, having started the process of transitioning and living full-time as a woman (i.e. presenting myself and interacting with the world as a woman) I'm happier as a woman.
(A quick side note. First, transsexual has sort of gone out of style, but is still used by some to mean "transgender people who specifically do want to have genital surgery." I should mention that transgender and transsexual are still both somewhat fuzzy terms, and two people within the LGBT community might give two different answers as to their definitions. Second, although I'm not going to speak for anyone else, I never wanted to cut off my penis. I would rather have a vagina, and may someday have surgery toward that end, but I'm not frantic about it. I'm sure there are some trans people who are more intense about their genitals as a symbol of gender, but I've never been crazy caught up about it.)
So I think that covers what trans means in general, and what it means to me. So lets get to lumping T with LGB.
At the core of things, I think you're right, although maybe not for the reasons you originally mentioned: GLB and T are a different, and there are problems with lumping them together. Basically, GLB sexual identities ("I like sleeping with people of gender X or Y") while T is a gender identity ("I see myself as gender X or Y"). (And, of course, some people are going to reject the straight/gay male/female binaries entirely.) From my view, being LGB is 'solved' by expressing the identified sexuality - gay men should date other men, lesbians should date other women, and bi people should date whomever they feel like. However, being trans is - at least for me - a medical issue that is 'solved' by body modification to have my body match my brain/identity. To make a somewhat stretched comparison, diabetes is not solved by therapy to convince someone they're not diabetic, it's solved by medicine. I am not exaggerating to say that, had I not been able to go on hormones and transition, I would be dead - I would have killed myself.
So, in that sense, GLB and T should not be lumped together as - at their core, they're not the same issue. However, they should be lumped together for purposes of non-discrimination laws and fighting for equal rights, because they all fall under the umbrella of non-heteronormative behavior, which is where the discrimination is aimed. (If someone is labeled "tranny" and fired for not looking like a "real" woman, it doesn't really matter if they identify as trans. Same for LGB discrimination.)
You've been very respectful and straightforward in this thread, and I definitely agree that homosexuality/heterosexuality being a choice is irrelevant to whether or not minority sexuality should be respected or oppressed. That said, I did want to bring one thing up:
The question of whether homosexuality is a choice is in itself a loaded one, because it assumes that the answer is germane to how GLBTs (i.e. anyone who isn't heterosexual) ought to be treated by society.
The 'T' in GLBT is often lumped together under the concept of all non-normative gender/sexualities going together. It's often simplified, as you said, to "anyone who isn't heterosexual." But I do want to point out that being trans doesn't preclude one from identifying as heterosexual. I'm a trans woman and, as it so happens, I also identify as a lesbian (probably...I reserve the right to identify differently in the future), but I don't consider those identities one and the same. And, although I know the plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data,' all of the trans-friendly gender and sexuality theorists I can think of would agree that gender and sexuality are not the same thing. Linked, possibly, but not one and the same.
As I said, this is a separate issue from whether being gay/trans/dominant/submissive/crossdresser/furry/anything out side of 'vanilla heterosexuality' should be respected, regardless of whether or not its a choice. I feel very strongly, as it seems you do, that the nature/nurture debate should not be the core of whether or not queer folk should be respected. But I still think the distinction between GLB as sexual identities and T as a gender identity is worth noting.
As the manager of a small office, I'd love to switch to F/OSS, but the big block right now is QuickBooks. Can I ask what you use for accounting and payroll? Thanks!
-Trillian
...Freeze Drying Technology, Water Purification, Solar Energy, Pollution Remediation, Better Virtual Software, Structural Analysis, Internet-Connected Ovens, Powdered Lubricants, Improved Mine Safety and Food Safety Systems...
Wait, what? I'm very pro-NASA, and in favor of human and robotic space exploration in general, but I don't know that an internet-connected oven is what we want the general public to have as their go-to example when thinking, "What good has NASA done for me lately?"
American football has four 15 minute quarters (one hour, right?)...
I know the Imperial v Metric conversions are confusing, but yes, four 15 minute quarters is one hour. We Americans have four 15 minute quarters in every hour (a 'quarter-hour,' if you will), although I'm not sure how you Brits tend to do things - each hour divided into fifths, each fifth containing twenty Metric minutes? I never was good at conversions...
Why people continue to distribute documents that will never be printed in PDF format is beyond me. I blame Adobe for pushing the Acrobat Reader software as being something more than the printer-friendly format it is.
Another thing to consider is the author's desire (or lack thereof) that the reader should be able to easily edit/extract images/etc. For example, I'm the General Manager of a business that sends out PDF brochures. I know full well it's pretty easy to extract text and images from the PDFs, or even just do a screen grab. But I use PDFs, and recommend others in my office do the same, when sending promotional material that I don't want the reader to edit. I feel that using PDF makes this desire clear, as [PDF = Can't Edit] to most people.
That said, if someone has a better recommendation for what I'm trying to do, I'm all ears.
My big issue (well, not that big) is XBMC's inability to stream NetFlix videos. I'm not too torn up, but it'd be really great if the XBox under my TV could not only play DVDs and stream music/movies from my computer in the other room, but stream from my NetFlix account as well. But it looks like we're going to be out of luck for that...
Thanks for responding. I think, on the one hand, you're right: we're all too damn sensitive, and I (and most people) need to take a chill pill and not pay attention to language/culture that they find offensive.
That said, I think it's naive to say that there's no real harm, and we all decide to let things affect us. Certainly, to a point, that's true. And I'm making an effort not to let every little trans joke get to me because, again, you're right - I can't expect people to go out of their way for my benefit.
But I think it's naive to say we have total control over what gets to us, or that words can't cause real damage. I grew up with societal reinforcement at a familial level and a cultural level that it's OK to be black or white, a man or a woman, Jew or Christian, gay or straight (to a lesser extent), etc. Certainly, there were those who pushed exclusion/bigotry/hatred, but generally it's easier to find culture saying it's OK to be any religion or whatnot.
It's much more difficult to find culture saying it's OK to be trans.
So I will certainly try to have thicker skin (as perhaps we all should) but I would ask you to use discretion when a joke or analogy might hurt someone's feelings.
First, I appreciate you taking the time to respond, and I'm sorry if I came off a little strong. Whether or not to disclose one's status as trans is a very difficult and contentious issue in the trans community. On the one hand, there's something similar to your point of view: "Whether you like it or not, people will feel deceived if they find out you have a penis and you're presenting as a woman (or a vagina and you're presenting as a man)". And, on the other end of the spectrum there are trans people who have a very different attitude: "It's not my responsibility, as someone who is trans, to cater to and attempt to manage the assumptions, biases, and sexual insecurities of others."
The issue I still have with your reply:
There's no hate here, but if someone has a penis and is dressed and acting like a woman, that's deceptive. You can't blame someone for having a negative reaction when, without a word, you're already lying to someone who's interested in you.
is the narrow definition of 'woman.' I completely agree that 'has a penis' doesn't fit most people's ideas of what it means to be a woman, but neither does a host of other characteristics many 'real' women have and don't feel required to disclose. Gender is much more complicated than most people assume, and related to much more than what's between your legs.
I guess, for myself, I come down somewhere in the middle of the two extremes. I completely agree with you that, if I date without disclosing my status as trans, I'll run into people who will feel deceived. However, I don't know that I agree it's deceptive. That is, I think I have a practical obligation to disclose my status as trans to avoid potential hardship, heartbreak, and (to go to the ugly extreme) being killed. But I don't agree that I have a moral obligation, or that not disclosing my status as trans is deceptive, or that calling myself a woman is "lying."
So, again, I really appreciate you being willing to engage in a discussion, rather than just being mean. But I'd ask you not to use language like "deceptive" or "lying" when describing trans women (or men, although the issue is usually bigger around trans women) for the same reasons I said before: it dismisses my ability to self-identify, and holds to a narrow and idealized definition of gender that most people can't actually meet.
First, I too would like to thank ToPaZ3in6 - they're right, we were somewhat talking past each other. My intent was not to flame, but to respond to what I thought you were saying, and I appreciate their clarification, and your followup. That said...
Now from a moral and personal perspective, Sure, use that argument because everyone wants to be happy. Every one wants to live their lives in a way that makes them feel as complete as possible. But from a legal perspective, the laws don't address those issues so it cannot be used as proof of discrimination. That is why I ignored it. As I said, I'm not against them marrying, I'm against the fallacy that they are somehow being discriminated against. They have the same legal rights as everyone else, even the ability to seek retribution if those rights are denied just as anyone else.
I honestly hadn't thought of this way. I guess I'm coming from the (admittedly emotional) perspective that society is moving in the direction of eliminating legal differences between men and women, and that this is (on the whole) a good thing. As such, I feel saying "you can't discriminate for housing (or employment or whatever) on the case of gender" means that "marriage is only between one man and one woman" is discriminatory.
You're right, this is much more of an emotional argument than a legal one. And, honestly, most of what I've seen of the efforts to overturn Prop 8 seem on rather shaky legal ground. So I don't know...But you've convinced me that waving my hands won't make gay marriage legal...(as much as I might wish it would).
That said, I think your final thoughts in reply to my original post were a little harsh:
And your point is what? Oh... Hahahahahhahahhaha.. Sorry about that. You think not letting gays marry is tyranny.. And here I thought you were somewhat intelligent. Gays are not denied the right to marry, they are just like the rest of us, denied the right to marry people of the same sex. BTW, Interracial marriage was corrected in 1868 and 1870 with constitutional amendments. Get constitutional amendments for gay marriage, and I will agree that it's the same thing. Until then, don't bring the two up in comparison because they arne't even close.
I didn't say not letting gays marry is tyranny, and it's misrepresenting my view to claim I did. I specifically said it's tyranny of the majority, in the same way keeping interracial marriage illegal was. And interracial marriage was not corrected with constitutional amendments, but with a Supreme Court ruling in 1967. You're right, the road was paved with XIV, but it took almost 100 years for the supreme court to notice. And, coming full circle, that would seem to be a damn fine legal basis for same sex marriage: "no state shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Again, if it's discrimination to say blacks and whites are different enough to prohibit marriage, it's discrimination to say two men or two women aren't entitled to the same "basic civil [right] of man" (from the unanimous decision in Loving v Virginia).
I don't really see any contradiction between something being a preference/choice or biologically determined (I consider all preferences and choices biologically determined).
Again, I'm not really concerned with homosexuality being a choice, biologically determined, or a combination of the two - I don't think it factors into whether gay marriage should be legal.
That is of course a perfectly respectable libertarian standpoint, but most people are not libertarians. On the contrary, they have no problems with the government setting up institutions to promote what they consider pro-social virtues and behavior. Such as marriage.
But I'm not arguing about what people have a problem with, but what government should be doing. Obviously, you're right - people are often thrilled when government protects their definition of 'good' behavior. But that's not a response to the argument "The government should not be doing so."
Child rearing is one of the aspects behind people's support for marriage, but far from the only one. Marriage plays many other important roles in regulating the interaction of the sexes.
Again, I don't think you're responding to the crux of my argument, that the government should not be regulating the behavior of consenting adults (or in the interaction of the sexes).
Of course, one can count having ones preferences catered to an essential right, but I consider that attitude more than a little narcissistic.
I don't think I said "essential right" everywhere, but I would consider marriage between consenting adults an inherent right. And, in the same way religious minorities and people saying things others don't like are just as protected as religious majorities and people saying things others do like, so should those interested in marriages between consenting adults that the majority of the population would not enter into.
First, as I posted a few minutes ago, we're not starting ab initio. We have a long-standing cultural institution to deal with that I think ought to get the benefit of the doubt. Only if the arguments on the other side are so compelling as to constitute an emergency should we consider a change.
Fair enough, although I don't know if I'd go so far as to say only an emergency should change longstanding cultural institutions. But marriage as 'one man, one woman' isn't a longstanding cultural institution, unless 'longstanding' is taken to mean 'the last generation or so.' While marriage has certainly historically meant 'men and women' and not 'men and men' or 'women and women,' ideas about divorce, property rights, the number of wives allowable, whether or not love was important, and so on have all changed substantially. So I think it's unfair to view same-sex marriage an upset to a "long-standing cultural institution" but say granting women property rights in marriage, the ability to refuse sex, heck, being viewed as more than property themselves, were part of that long-standing institution.
Second, the ideal of the government staying out of all transactions between consenting adults has to be considered in the context of all the other rights, expectations, benefits, etc. that the government already mediates. Maybe a perfect world would be one in which the government truly does stay out of all of these things. But removing it from the business of regulating marriage, when it also confers other rights based on marriage, is a recipe for the abuse of those rights.
Again, I think you have a good point - "my right to swing my arm ends at your nose," and so on. But I don't see how same-sex marriage is a recipe for "the abuse of those rights." And I think that society and government should lean toward having to prove something is harmful, not requiring proponents to have to prove it's safe. (I say "in general" because I do agree in things like food and drugs, it is the responsibility of the proponent to first prove it's safe beyond some reasonable doubt.)
By the way, just to throw some other wrenches into the discussion: what constitutes a "minor"? What about "legally incompetent" adults? If the government is not to regulate transactions between consenting adults, does that mean they can't charge sales tax if I sell something to my neighbor? What about if I start a business and sell the same thing? Can I perform surgery without a license, as long as the patient agrees? (What if I lie about it? Lying isn't a crime. So how would you prevent this?)
I don't see how that throws a wrench into the discussion at all. I'm operating from the standpoint that gay men and women are in their right minds. Going from there, they fall under the category of 'consenting adults.' We already have to deal with issues of minors and legally incompetent adults in terms of marriages, and I dont' see how gay marriage would change that.
Furthermore, I didn't say "transactions between consenting adults," I said "behavior of." I know it's a fine distinction, but I'd argue marriage isn't transactional, but behavioral. As such, it wouldn't fall under the same realm as regulating sales tax.
But we've drifted from the realm of gay marriage - you said "Once you concede that, what principle prevents any old arrangement - marrying your sister, marrying a goat, marrying a group of people, whatever? All the arguments used in support of gay marriage could be used to support any of these arrangements." and I presented a counter-argument that, I believe, could not be used to argue in favor of marrying a goat or a minor. And I still don't understand the moral or legal grounds for prohibiting gay marriage, or group marriage, and I don't think you've put forth a compelling argument.
It's kinda like when you meet a hot girl, you hit it off, then your friend tells you she has a penis.
Always with the trans-bashing. (Not you specifically, although who knows, but society in general.)
As a girl with a penis (who would like to think of herself as hot, but won't presume to assume she is) I can't even begin to tell you how amazing it makes me feel to be a member of the one group that's completely open-season for bashing. You'd never get away with nigger jokes, much of popular culture has become hesitant using 'gay' as an insult, but make a joke about a tranny and it's instant hilarity.
The Colbert Report, How I Met Your Mother, almost every news report involving a trans person, everything surrounding Thomas Beattie... Rarely is there the slightest hesitation in trans-bashing.
So please, on behalf on trans men and women everywhere, use a little discretion. Whether or not you intended it, your post just heightened and strengthened all the doubts I have about myself and how others view me. It hurt, in a very real and substantial way that I wish I could just shrug off, but can't. I know I'll never be the picture-perfect ideal of femininity, but neither will 99% of the 'real' women out there. Please don't contribute to the hate that's out there, because it does affect people.
I hate to add a 'me too' post but...I agree! I don't know that I wouldn't have purchased Wii Fit if I'd realized there weren't built-in workout 'routines,' but it's the first thing that occurred to me when I started using it. It actually took me a few days to realize that it was a missing feature, and not just something that was going to be unlocked...
Gov't run health care? No thanks. I hate the DMV enough to have an idea of what that will be like.
I'm not saying that government run health care would save billions of dollars or be a paragon of efficiency - I don't know enough to comment. But, as someone who is cautiously in favor of nationalized health care, I'm curious what you suggest people who can't afford health care, or who aren't insurable, do.
That is, I am on a COBRA extension of the insurance I received as a dependent of my parents. When the extension runs out in 2010, I will either need to find a job with a group insurance plan or go without insurance. (I have enough medical conditions that when I did search for insurance last year, no one would take me. Not, "They would take me for more money than I wanted to spend." They simply wouldn't give me insurance.) Should I go without insurance, and go into debt for the medication I need? Or am I obligated to quit the job I like, that pays me enough to cover my expenses and put some money aside to savings, to find one I may like less with a group insurance plan? Conversely, are you in favor of the uninsured simply getting sick and dying?
Please note, I'm honestly not trying to attack you. I disagree with you, but I'd much rather have a discussion or a dialogue than a fight. I just don't see how the free market, where only the healthy can find insurance, works better than a national system, even with the flaws of government bureaucracy.
Slashdot Mirror
It's, unfortunately, not that simple....
It's possible you're generally commenting rather than directing that at me specifically, in which case you can ignore this, but I don't think I overly took offense. I pointed something out that seemed, to me, to be disrespectful and have been trying to engage in a conversation about why I feel that way.
-Trillian
Now that's a funny trans joke! ::grin::
I agree with everything you've said here. As I said, I don't think Vega was intending the language to be disrespectful or hurtful. Likewise, I understood exactly what she meant, and Vega was using an culturally-understood phrasing when said, "...she wasn't really a girl."
However, I think you raise the point I'm trying to make by saying, "Not that all women [can bear a child]..." The fact is, any individual definition of 'girl' (or 'boy') will ultimately boil down to "I knows it when I sees it," because there are so many edge cases: definitions of genetics get tricky with people who have XXY or XYY instead of XX or XY, definitions of childbearing get difficult (as you mention) with people who are infertile, definitions of how one was raised get confusing with trans people (and other definition-straddling or -crossing individuals), definitions based on appearance get muddled with anyone not confirming to strict gendered appearances (and people with AIS), etc, etc.
As such, what I'm putting forth is that it's most respectful to use someone's own self-identification when labeling someone a man or a woman.
Oh, completely - I'm 100% trying to get people to change their definitions of 'man' and 'woman' (and 'boy' and 'girl' and so on and so forth). I'd like to think I'm trying to convince them rather than strongarm them, but I suppose that'd just be a different semantic argument. ::grin::
Well, definitions are important. I identify as a Jew, too, and I would be offended if someone else said I wasn't "really" a Jew because I don't observe the sabbath or keep kosher (or a number of other things...I said I was a Jew, not a particularly observant one). I don't think I was in the wrong (or, as a note to moderators, trolling...) when I said it's "...not generally considered respectful language [to say someone who is trans isn't "really" a girl]." You're right, I should wait until there's overt transphobia before being similarly divisive, butI don't think I was being righteously indignant in what I said. At least I certainly wasn't trying to be. But pointing out that I'll ruffle feathers by sticking up for myself doesn't mean I shouldn't.
-Trillian
I appreciate your apology, and your comment didn't (in and of itself) offend, just the moderation. I definitely didn't get the reference and it would appear, according to Suzanne Vega herself (scroll down to interview excerpt), the song was certainly written with good intent.
All that said, and having nothing to do with your comment, I'm not thrilled with Vega saying, "...I found out she wasn't really a girl," (emphasis added) in reference to the song's inspiration. Again, I don't think Vega is coming from a transphobic or hateful place, I just want to point out that that's not generally considered respectful language. (This isn't directly specifically at you, MichaelSmith, just more a general note...)
-Trillian
PS - I know I've been spoiled by the Internet, because I'm frustrated I wasn't able to imediately find an audio and/or video version of As Girls Go, so I could check it out, with a 30 second Google search...
I asked myself the same question. In all fairness, that is how she signed off in the link included in TFS, but I still think its inclusion wasn't strictly needed for the "News for Nerds" aspect of the story....
I knew, coming into this thread, that the comments would just make me feel great, but I have a masochistic streak, so I did it anyway.
I don't know, MichaelSmith, if you intended your comment as tongue-in-cheek or not (giving you the benefit of the doubt, I'll assume not) but - as a trans woman - I'm disappointed that the two moderations your post has received so far are 'Funny.' It's A) transphobic to assume MichaelSmith meant the comment as a joke and B) not particularly funny even if it was intended as a joke...
(Obligatory acknowledgement that, yes, it's "just a joke" and, yes, I'm just over sensitive and taking things too personally.)
Trillian
As someone who is undergoing a dry spell following a nasty breakup, I speak for single queer women everywhere* when I say get off Slashdot and hit that!
-Trillian
* And probably single straight guys, too. And probably some straight guys who aren't single. And hell, queer girls, too. In fact, on behalf of people everywhere who are fantasizing about a better sex life for themselves, get off Slashdot and hit that!. Do it for us, if not for yourself.
to be used for starting sentences (or paragraphs) that are continued in the body of the post.
(Which isn't to say I disagree with your post, I just really dislike the habit of starting a sentence or a thought in the subject line...It makes for more a more confusing, disjointed reading of the post.)
-Trillian
Thanks for the reply! And kodus for working to educate yourself.
You're right, hitching T to LGB doesn't always help the GLB 'cause.' And it's worth noting that (as some other people in the thread have pointed out) not everyone who identifies as GLB is thrilled about the inclusion of T. Or, at the very least, is willing to ditch T when politically expedient. For example, while fighting to pass the Employee Non-Discrimination Act last year, language protecting trans people from discrimination was was dropped with the goal of making a more 'palatable' bill. Unfortunately, the bill still failed to pass... I'd argue that 'taking what we can get' is not a good way to further civil rights goals, and that people usually don't 'come back' for the stragglers later (as proponents of the non-trans-inclusive ENDA claimed they would do).
I've drifted off-topic, but I wanted to point out that while GLB is often lumped with T, it doesn't have to be, and reasons for not lumping them together can be both positive and negative. And I'd actually agree that putting them all together is only altruistic in the sense that (relatively) common hardships can foster alliances.
-Trillian
I don't think what you're saying is intended to be hurtful, and it's not offtopic. I don't even know that I think you should have held your tongue. All that said, it's still hurtful to hear, as someone who is trans.
I'll try to use an analogy to express myself more clearly. If someone came into my office with both legs amputated, I'd probably be a little creeped out. I certainly wouldn't want both of my legs amputated. But I'd try not to let that person know how I felt, because I would assume saying them would be hurtful.
As someone who is trans, I can understand you feeling uneasy about someone medically modifying their body. I can even understand you never wanting to do it yourself. And, as I said, I don't even think your comment was particularly off topic or 'wrong.' I just want to make you aware that there are trans people around (on Slashdot and in real life...) and casual comments can be painful.
-Trillian
I identify as trans, and figured I'd voice my opinion (although it looks like I'm not the only trans person to reply to your post). It does sound like you're getting a lot of replies (some informative and polite, some less so...) so no worries if you're not able to respond to this. Likewise, while your post wasn't with the most respectful language, you also expressed your ignorance and asked for information, which I do have to respect. And I do want to include an obligatory "These are my opinions. Where possible, I'll try to point out what my thinking is versus 'mainstream' thought, if they differ."
With that out of the way, lets get started...First, let me go briefly over what being transgender is usually thought to mean, as well as what it means for me. Then, I'll cover why GLBT are lumped together, and then I'll get into why they should or shouldn't be.
The cliche definition for transgender, "A woman in a man's body" (or vice versa) is a little over-simplified. More broadly, transgender means someone who has a gender identity (i.e. how they see themself as a man or a woman, somewhere in between, or something else entirely) that does not match the gender they were assigned at birth. For myself, I was raised as male, have (as far as I know) XY of chromosomes, went through masculanizing puberty, etc. However, I see myself as a woman. And, having started the process of transitioning and living full-time as a woman (i.e. presenting myself and interacting with the world as a woman) I'm happier as a woman.
(A quick side note. First, transsexual has sort of gone out of style, but is still used by some to mean "transgender people who specifically do want to have genital surgery." I should mention that transgender and transsexual are still both somewhat fuzzy terms, and two people within the LGBT community might give two different answers as to their definitions. Second, although I'm not going to speak for anyone else, I never wanted to cut off my penis. I would rather have a vagina, and may someday have surgery toward that end, but I'm not frantic about it. I'm sure there are some trans people who are more intense about their genitals as a symbol of gender, but I've never been crazy caught up about it.)
So I think that covers what trans means in general, and what it means to me. So lets get to lumping T with LGB.
At the core of things, I think you're right, although maybe not for the reasons you originally mentioned: GLB and T are a different, and there are problems with lumping them together. Basically, GLB sexual identities ("I like sleeping with people of gender X or Y") while T is a gender identity ("I see myself as gender X or Y"). (And, of course, some people are going to reject the straight/gay male/female binaries entirely.) From my view, being LGB is 'solved' by expressing the identified sexuality - gay men should date other men, lesbians should date other women, and bi people should date whomever they feel like. However, being trans is - at least for me - a medical issue that is 'solved' by body modification to have my body match my brain/identity. To make a somewhat stretched comparison, diabetes is not solved by therapy to convince someone they're not diabetic, it's solved by medicine. I am not exaggerating to say that, had I not been able to go on hormones and transition, I would be dead - I would have killed myself.
So, in that sense, GLB and T should not be lumped together as - at their core, they're not the same issue. However, they should be lumped together for purposes of non-discrimination laws and fighting for equal rights, because they all fall under the umbrella of non-heteronormative behavior, which is where the discrimination is aimed. (If someone is labeled "tranny" and fired for not looking like a "real" woman, it doesn't really matter if they identify as trans. Same for LGB discrimination.)
You've been very respectful and straightforward in this thread, and I definitely agree that homosexuality/heterosexuality being a choice is irrelevant to whether or not minority sexuality should be respected or oppressed. That said, I did want to bring one thing up:
The question of whether homosexuality is a choice is in itself a loaded one, because it assumes that the answer is germane to how GLBTs (i.e. anyone who isn't heterosexual) ought to be treated by society.
The 'T' in GLBT is often lumped together under the concept of all non-normative gender/sexualities going together. It's often simplified, as you said, to "anyone who isn't heterosexual." But I do want to point out that being trans doesn't preclude one from identifying as heterosexual. I'm a trans woman and, as it so happens, I also identify as a lesbian (probably...I reserve the right to identify differently in the future), but I don't consider those identities one and the same. And, although I know the plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data,' all of the trans-friendly gender and sexuality theorists I can think of would agree that gender and sexuality are not the same thing. Linked, possibly, but not one and the same.
As I said, this is a separate issue from whether being gay/trans/dominant/submissive/crossdresser/furry/anything out side of 'vanilla heterosexuality' should be respected, regardless of whether or not its a choice. I feel very strongly, as it seems you do, that the nature/nurture debate should not be the core of whether or not queer folk should be respected. But I still think the distinction between GLB as sexual identities and T as a gender identity is worth noting.
-Trillian
As the manager of a small office, I'd love to switch to F/OSS, but the big block right now is QuickBooks. Can I ask what you use for accounting and payroll? Thanks!
-Trillian
...Freeze Drying Technology, Water Purification, Solar Energy, Pollution Remediation, Better Virtual Software, Structural Analysis, Internet-Connected Ovens, Powdered Lubricants, Improved Mine Safety and Food Safety Systems...
Wait, what? I'm very pro-NASA, and in favor of human and robotic space exploration in general, but I don't know that an internet-connected oven is what we want the general public to have as their go-to example when thinking, "What good has NASA done for me lately?"
-Trillian
American football has four 15 minute quarters (one hour, right?)...
I know the Imperial v Metric conversions are confusing, but yes, four 15 minute quarters is one hour. We Americans have four 15 minute quarters in every hour (a 'quarter-hour,' if you will), although I'm not sure how you Brits tend to do things - each hour divided into fifths, each fifth containing twenty Metric minutes? I never was good at conversions...
-Trillian
Why people continue to distribute documents that will never be printed in PDF format is beyond me. I blame Adobe for pushing the Acrobat Reader software as being something more than the printer-friendly format it is.
Another thing to consider is the author's desire (or lack thereof) that the reader should be able to easily edit/extract images/etc. For example, I'm the General Manager of a business that sends out PDF brochures. I know full well it's pretty easy to extract text and images from the PDFs, or even just do a screen grab. But I use PDFs, and recommend others in my office do the same, when sending promotional material that I don't want the reader to edit. I feel that using PDF makes this desire clear, as [PDF = Can't Edit] to most people.
That said, if someone has a better recommendation for what I'm trying to do, I'm all ears.
-Trillian
My big issue (well, not that big) is XBMC's inability to stream NetFlix videos. I'm not too torn up, but it'd be really great if the XBox under my TV could not only play DVDs and stream music/movies from my computer in the other room, but stream from my NetFlix account as well. But it looks like we're going to be out of luck for that...
-Trillian
Thanks for responding. I think, on the one hand, you're right: we're all too damn sensitive, and I (and most people) need to take a chill pill and not pay attention to language/culture that they find offensive.
That said, I think it's naive to say that there's no real harm, and we all decide to let things affect us. Certainly, to a point, that's true. And I'm making an effort not to let every little trans joke get to me because, again, you're right - I can't expect people to go out of their way for my benefit.
But I think it's naive to say we have total control over what gets to us, or that words can't cause real damage. I grew up with societal reinforcement at a familial level and a cultural level that it's OK to be black or white, a man or a woman, Jew or Christian, gay or straight (to a lesser extent), etc. Certainly, there were those who pushed exclusion/bigotry/hatred, but generally it's easier to find culture saying it's OK to be any religion or whatnot.
It's much more difficult to find culture saying it's OK to be trans.
So I will certainly try to have thicker skin (as perhaps we all should) but I would ask you to use discretion when a joke or analogy might hurt someone's feelings.
-Trillian
First, I appreciate you taking the time to respond, and I'm sorry if I came off a little strong. Whether or not to disclose one's status as trans is a very difficult and contentious issue in the trans community. On the one hand, there's something similar to your point of view: "Whether you like it or not, people will feel deceived if they find out you have a penis and you're presenting as a woman (or a vagina and you're presenting as a man)". And, on the other end of the spectrum there are trans people who have a very different attitude: "It's not my responsibility, as someone who is trans, to cater to and attempt to manage the assumptions, biases, and sexual insecurities of others."
The issue I still have with your reply:
There's no hate here, but if someone has a penis and is dressed and acting like a woman, that's deceptive. You can't blame someone for having a negative reaction when, without a word, you're already lying to someone who's interested in you.
is the narrow definition of 'woman.' I completely agree that 'has a penis' doesn't fit most people's ideas of what it means to be a woman, but neither does a host of other characteristics many 'real' women have and don't feel required to disclose. Gender is much more complicated than most people assume, and related to much more than what's between your legs.
I guess, for myself, I come down somewhere in the middle of the two extremes. I completely agree with you that, if I date without disclosing my status as trans, I'll run into people who will feel deceived. However, I don't know that I agree it's deceptive. That is, I think I have a practical obligation to disclose my status as trans to avoid potential hardship, heartbreak, and (to go to the ugly extreme) being killed. But I don't agree that I have a moral obligation, or that not disclosing my status as trans is deceptive, or that calling myself a woman is "lying."
So, again, I really appreciate you being willing to engage in a discussion, rather than just being mean. But I'd ask you not to use language like "deceptive" or "lying" when describing trans women (or men, although the issue is usually bigger around trans women) for the same reasons I said before: it dismisses my ability to self-identify, and holds to a narrow and idealized definition of gender that most people can't actually meet.
-Trillian
First, I too would like to thank ToPaZ3in6 - they're right, we were somewhat talking past each other. My intent was not to flame, but to respond to what I thought you were saying, and I appreciate their clarification, and your followup. That said...
Now from a moral and personal perspective, Sure, use that argument because everyone wants to be happy. Every one wants to live their lives in a way that makes them feel as complete as possible. But from a legal perspective, the laws don't address those issues so it cannot be used as proof of discrimination. That is why I ignored it. As I said, I'm not against them marrying, I'm against the fallacy that they are somehow being discriminated against. They have the same legal rights as everyone else, even the ability to seek retribution if those rights are denied just as anyone else.
I honestly hadn't thought of this way. I guess I'm coming from the (admittedly emotional) perspective that society is moving in the direction of eliminating legal differences between men and women, and that this is (on the whole) a good thing. As such, I feel saying "you can't discriminate for housing (or employment or whatever) on the case of gender" means that "marriage is only between one man and one woman" is discriminatory.
You're right, this is much more of an emotional argument than a legal one. And, honestly, most of what I've seen of the efforts to overturn Prop 8 seem on rather shaky legal ground. So I don't know...But you've convinced me that waving my hands won't make gay marriage legal...(as much as I might wish it would).
That said, I think your final thoughts in reply to my original post were a little harsh:
And your point is what? Oh... Hahahahahhahahhaha.. Sorry about that. You think not letting gays marry is tyranny.. And here I thought you were somewhat intelligent. Gays are not denied the right to marry, they are just like the rest of us, denied the right to marry people of the same sex. BTW, Interracial marriage was corrected in 1868 and 1870 with constitutional amendments. Get constitutional amendments for gay marriage, and I will agree that it's the same thing. Until then, don't bring the two up in comparison because they arne't even close.
I didn't say not letting gays marry is tyranny, and it's misrepresenting my view to claim I did. I specifically said it's tyranny of the majority, in the same way keeping interracial marriage illegal was. And interracial marriage was not corrected with constitutional amendments, but with a Supreme Court ruling in 1967. You're right, the road was paved with XIV, but it took almost 100 years for the supreme court to notice. And, coming full circle, that would seem to be a damn fine legal basis for same sex marriage: "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Again, if it's discrimination to say blacks and whites are different enough to prohibit marriage, it's discrimination to say two men or two women aren't entitled to the same "basic civil [right] of man" (from the unanimous decision in Loving v Virginia).
-Trillian
I don't really see any contradiction between something being a preference/choice or biologically determined (I consider all preferences and choices biologically determined).
Again, I'm not really concerned with homosexuality being a choice, biologically determined, or a combination of the two - I don't think it factors into whether gay marriage should be legal.
That is of course a perfectly respectable libertarian standpoint, but most people are not libertarians. On the contrary, they have no problems with the government setting up institutions to promote what they consider pro-social virtues and behavior. Such as marriage.
But I'm not arguing about what people have a problem with, but what government should be doing. Obviously, you're right - people are often thrilled when government protects their definition of 'good' behavior. But that's not a response to the argument "The government should not be doing so."
Child rearing is one of the aspects behind people's support for marriage, but far from the only one. Marriage plays many other important roles in regulating the interaction of the sexes.
Again, I don't think you're responding to the crux of my argument, that the government should not be regulating the behavior of consenting adults (or in the interaction of the sexes).
Of course, one can count having ones preferences catered to an essential right, but I consider that attitude more than a little narcissistic.
I don't think I said "essential right" everywhere, but I would consider marriage between consenting adults an inherent right. And, in the same way religious minorities and people saying things others don't like are just as protected as religious majorities and people saying things others do like, so should those interested in marriages between consenting adults that the majority of the population would not enter into.
-Trillian
First, as I posted a few minutes ago, we're not starting ab initio. We have a long-standing cultural institution to deal with that I think ought to get the benefit of the doubt. Only if the arguments on the other side are so compelling as to constitute an emergency should we consider a change.
Fair enough, although I don't know if I'd go so far as to say only an emergency should change longstanding cultural institutions. But marriage as 'one man, one woman' isn't a longstanding cultural institution, unless 'longstanding' is taken to mean 'the last generation or so.' While marriage has certainly historically meant 'men and women' and not 'men and men' or 'women and women,' ideas about divorce, property rights, the number of wives allowable, whether or not love was important, and so on have all changed substantially. So I think it's unfair to view same-sex marriage an upset to a "long-standing cultural institution" but say granting women property rights in marriage, the ability to refuse sex, heck, being viewed as more than property themselves, were part of that long-standing institution.
Second, the ideal of the government staying out of all transactions between consenting adults has to be considered in the context of all the other rights, expectations, benefits, etc. that the government already mediates. Maybe a perfect world would be one in which the government truly does stay out of all of these things. But removing it from the business of regulating marriage, when it also confers other rights based on marriage, is a recipe for the abuse of those rights.
Again, I think you have a good point - "my right to swing my arm ends at your nose," and so on. But I don't see how same-sex marriage is a recipe for "the abuse of those rights." And I think that society and government should lean toward having to prove something is harmful, not requiring proponents to have to prove it's safe. (I say "in general" because I do agree in things like food and drugs, it is the responsibility of the proponent to first prove it's safe beyond some reasonable doubt.)
By the way, just to throw some other wrenches into the discussion: what constitutes a "minor"? What about "legally incompetent" adults? If the government is not to regulate transactions between consenting adults, does that mean they can't charge sales tax if I sell something to my neighbor? What about if I start a business and sell the same thing? Can I perform surgery without a license, as long as the patient agrees? (What if I lie about it? Lying isn't a crime. So how would you prevent this?)
I don't see how that throws a wrench into the discussion at all. I'm operating from the standpoint that gay men and women are in their right minds. Going from there, they fall under the category of 'consenting adults.' We already have to deal with issues of minors and legally incompetent adults in terms of marriages, and I dont' see how gay marriage would change that.
Furthermore, I didn't say "transactions between consenting adults," I said "behavior of." I know it's a fine distinction, but I'd argue marriage isn't transactional, but behavioral. As such, it wouldn't fall under the same realm as regulating sales tax.
But we've drifted from the realm of gay marriage - you said "Once you concede that, what principle prevents any old arrangement - marrying your sister, marrying a goat, marrying a group of people, whatever? All the arguments used in support of gay marriage could be used to support any of these arrangements." and I presented a counter-argument that, I believe, could not be used to argue in favor of marrying a goat or a minor. And I still don't understand the moral or legal grounds for prohibiting gay marriage, or group marriage, and I don't think you've put forth a compelling argument.
-Trillian
It's kinda like when you meet a hot girl, you hit it off, then your friend tells you she has a penis.
Always with the trans-bashing. (Not you specifically, although who knows, but society in general.)
As a girl with a penis (who would like to think of herself as hot, but won't presume to assume she is) I can't even begin to tell you how amazing it makes me feel to be a member of the one group that's completely open-season for bashing. You'd never get away with nigger jokes, much of popular culture has become hesitant using 'gay' as an insult, but make a joke about a tranny and it's instant hilarity.
The Colbert Report, How I Met Your Mother, almost every news report involving a trans person, everything surrounding Thomas Beattie... Rarely is there the slightest hesitation in trans-bashing.
So please, on behalf on trans men and women everywhere, use a little discretion. Whether or not you intended it, your post just heightened and strengthened all the doubts I have about myself and how others view me. It hurt, in a very real and substantial way that I wish I could just shrug off, but can't. I know I'll never be the picture-perfect ideal of femininity, but neither will 99% of the 'real' women out there. Please don't contribute to the hate that's out there, because it does affect people.
-Trillian
I hate to add a 'me too' post but...I agree! I don't know that I wouldn't have purchased Wii Fit if I'd realized there weren't built-in workout 'routines,' but it's the first thing that occurred to me when I started using it. It actually took me a few days to realize that it was a missing feature, and not just something that was going to be unlocked...
-Trillian
Gov't run health care? No thanks. I hate the DMV enough to have an idea of what that will be like.
I'm not saying that government run health care would save billions of dollars or be a paragon of efficiency - I don't know enough to comment. But, as someone who is cautiously in favor of nationalized health care, I'm curious what you suggest people who can't afford health care, or who aren't insurable, do.
That is, I am on a COBRA extension of the insurance I received as a dependent of my parents. When the extension runs out in 2010, I will either need to find a job with a group insurance plan or go without insurance. (I have enough medical conditions that when I did search for insurance last year, no one would take me. Not, "They would take me for more money than I wanted to spend." They simply wouldn't give me insurance.) Should I go without insurance, and go into debt for the medication I need? Or am I obligated to quit the job I like, that pays me enough to cover my expenses and put some money aside to savings, to find one I may like less with a group insurance plan? Conversely, are you in favor of the uninsured simply getting sick and dying?
Please note, I'm honestly not trying to attack you. I disagree with you, but I'd much rather have a discussion or a dialogue than a fight. I just don't see how the free market, where only the healthy can find insurance, works better than a national system, even with the flaws of government bureaucracy.
Thoughts?
-Trillian