The Island of Doctor Moreau

[JoeWeber 2,299]

On 6/25/2017 at 8:41 AM, winsor said:

When a law requires me to adhere to verbiage that is deemed polite by standards with which I may or man not agree, then I have a problem. It is the Orwellian nature of prescribed Newspeak that gives me pause.

Who consenting adults do or do not sleep with, and quite what they do behind closed doors, is none of my goddamned business. Beyond providing for tunes by Aerosmith, the Kinks et al., the whole gender bending thing is uninteresting. Making it a felony to guess wrong when addressing someone really annoys me.


BSBD,

Surely this much is easily agreed to by most, I think. Of course, we should all be civilized enough to not intentionally, and out of sheer stubbornness, hurt the feelings of our fellows who are struggling with gender identity issues. But mistakes should not be stigmatized socially or penalized legally. The bottom line is that we are way too early in our understanding of the problem of gender dysphoria to have even a solid guess at how much of the condition is owing to nurture or to nature or to Facebook. As we take the time to learn I think the best path is to broadly disagree with the idea of gender reassignment surgery for minors but otherwise just live and let live. 

[billvon 2,400]

1 hour ago, JoeWeber said:

 As we take the time to learn I think the best path is to broadly disagree with the idea of gender reassignment surgery for minors but otherwise just live and let live. 

I agree; I feel a similar way about abortion.  Bad idea in general, and can sometimes be the worst possible choice.  But since I am not the person IN those situations, ultimately the decision has to be theirs and their doctors.

[JerryBaumchen 1,048]

55 minutes ago, billvon said:

I agree; I feel the same way about abortion.  Bad idea in general, and can sometimes be the worst possible choice.  But since I am not the person IN those situations, ultimately the decision has to be theirs and their doctors.

Hi Bill,

Once again, I have never met a pro-choice person who says anyone has to get an abortion.

Jerry Baumchen

[jakee 1,255]

.

Edited July 6, 2023 by jakee

[jakee 1,255]

2 hours ago, billvon said:

So going back to this -

Funny thing - sometimes archaeologists will take one look at a skeleton and identify it as anatomically male, and then test it later with more advanced tests and decide it was genetically female.

Sounds like even archaeologists are woke!  Well, the intelligent ones, at least. 

https://apnews.com/article/spain-tomb-woman-copper-age-72994db20f84a035862fb46dcddccc6e

The whole point he’s trying to make is quite odd. Ask any archaeologist if they’re more interested in a) finding out how the people they dig up lived their lives or b) counting male and female skeletons, and what do we think they’re going to say?

[mistercwood 287]

2 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

Of course, we should all be civilized enough to not intentionally, and out of sheer stubbornness, hurt the feelings of our fellows who are struggling with gender identity issues. But mistakes should not be stigmatized socially or penalized legally.

And they're not. The idea that they ever would be was a myth.

2 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

The bottom line is that we are way too early in our understanding of the problem of gender dysphoria to have even a solid guess at how much of the condition is owing to nurture or to nature or to Facebook

We definitely know it's not to do with Facebook, since we've got well over a century of serious study on the topic. Trans people are a very small percentage of the population, but they are not in any way a new phenomenon.

2 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

As we take the time to learn I think the best path is to broadly disagree with the idea of gender reassignment surgery for minors but otherwise just live and let live. 

This also is more or less the current state of affairs anyway. The only surgical procedures done on minors are, on very rare occasions, mastectomies. These are only done when the kid's dysphoria is so bad that a medical assessment has been made, that the risks associated with doing the surgery are less than the risks that the kid will seriously self-harm or suicide if it's not performed.

In the US, the rate is around one patient every few days, nationally. In a population approaching 1/3 of a billion people, that's barely a statistical blip. There are orders of magnitudes more teen girls getting breast augmentations for vanity than there are getting gender-affirming procedures, but the equivalent moral panic is completely absent.

[wmw999 2,122]

4 minutes ago, mistercwood said:

The idea that they ever would be was a myth.

Nah, some people do really have extremely thin skin. Which is OK, but when they look for the bad in every statement (even if that’s because they've suffered far more than their share of insult), then it’s hard not to offend, even if completely innocently. 
Just consider how much slack you might cut a Trump supporter…

Wendy P. 

[mistercwood 287]

1 minute ago, wmw999 said:

Which is OK, but when they look for the bad in every statement (even if that’s because they've suffered far more than their share of insult), then it’s hard not to offend, even if completely innocently.

You're right, I could have been more specific - broadly, no one is going to care if you misgender them by mistake. Yes, you'll get some people who want to make it a bigger deal than it is, for the reasons you state. But legal consequences for a mistake are most definitely a myth, yet they keep getting trotted out again and again.

[JoeWeber 2,299]

2 hours ago, mistercwood said:

And they're not. The idea that they ever would be was a myth.

We definitely know it's not to do with Facebook, since we've got well over a century of serious study on the topic. Trans people are a very small percentage of the population, but they are not in any way a new phenomenon.

This also is more or less the current state of affairs anyway. The only surgical procedures done on minors are, on very rare occasions, mastectomies. These are only done when the kid's dysphoria is so bad that a medical assessment has been made, that the risks associated with doing the surgery are less than the risks that the kid will seriously self-harm or suicide if it's not performed.

In the US, the rate is around one patient every few days, nationally. In a population approaching 1/3 of a billion people, that's barely a statistical blip. There are orders of magnitudes more teen girls getting breast augmentations for vanity than there are getting gender-affirming procedures, but the equivalent moral panic is completely absent.

Mis-gendering is a serious thing for some people. If you think not just go into any Apple store and check out the name tags. Myths are references to the past, would be's reference the future. I was positing should not's.

I prefer to include Facebook in any discussion of societies ill's if you don't I respect your position. In the meantime which serious studies on the matter from a century ago should I review and where would you place nature/nurture in the conversation?

Absolutely we are talking small numbers of gender affirming surgeries but it is also true that the idea of it seems to be growing in acceptance hence the developing desire to discuss the reasons. Sort of it's the same as needing to discuss, in philosophical terms, skydiving safety issues which sort of has us all in the same bucket already. There is a real use to it.

 

[mistercwood 287]

2 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

Mis-gendering is a serious thing for some people. If you think not just go into any Apple store and check out the name tags. Myths are references to the past, would be's reference the future. I was positing should not's.

I'm not disputing that it's serious, and I agree that innocent mistakes with someone's gender should not in any way carry repercussions, legal or otherwise. I think it was more that my alarm bells were ringing when you appeared to be parroting talking points from Jordan Petersen, in which he claimed (falsely) that the Canadian bill referenced in Winsor's previously quoted post would compel him to use someone's preferred pronouns and that the simple act of failing to do so could carry penalties from the state. That's the myth part.

If that's not your position, then I think we're on the same page - mistakes made without malice should be excused.

2 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

I prefer to include Facebook in any discussion of societies ill's if you don't I respect your position.

Again, the reference to social media as a potential cause for alleged upticks in trans kids is a talking point being pushed by some without evidence. It's often referred to as "social contagion", and it's being used as one of the wedges to try and paint many of these kids as confused and not "really" trans.

 

2 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

In the meantime which serious studies on the matter from a century ago should I review and where would you place nature/nurture in the conversation?

The biggest work was being done in Germany around 1910 up to the 30's (Institut für Sexualwissenschaft - Wikipedia). I'm sure you can work out what happened to it. My key point here though was merely to point out that we've been conscious of trans people being a real thing for a very very long time. It's not a new trend or fad. As for nature/nurture, I generally feel nurture doesn't work that way. In the end though, I let the medical professionals do the work and update us if they find links contrary to current understanding.

2 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

Absolutely we are talking small numbers of gender affirming surgeries but it is also true that the idea of it seems to be growing in acceptance hence the developing desire to discuss the reasons. Sort of it's the same as needing to discuss, in philosophical terms, skydiving safety issues which sort of has us all in the same bucket already. There is a real use to it.

I think there can be good things to come out of more general discussion. But my caution is based on a lot of loud voices out there saying they're "just asking questions" and then only seeking out and platforming the most negative voices and stories, while pretending the positive ones don't exist. Often the negative stories aren't even verifiable, but it doesn't stop people latching on to them and saying "well even if it's not true, imagine if it was, why do you want to mutilate kids" etc etc.

End of the day, my main position is that these things are for patients to discuss with their health professionals. Discussion outside of that needs a lot of care to avoid bolstering the people who just don't want trans people to exist.

[JoeWeber 2,299]

19 minutes ago, mistercwood said:

I'm not disputing that it's serious, and I agree that innocent mistakes with someone's gender should not in any way carry repercussions, legal or otherwise. I think it was more that my alarm bells were ringing when you appeared to be parroting talking points from Jordan Petersen, in which he claimed (falsely) that the Canadian bill referenced in Winsor's previously quoted post would compel him to use someone's preferred pronouns and that the simple act of failing to do so could carry penalties from the state. That's the myth part.

If that's not your position, then I think we're on the same page - mistakes made without malice should be excused.

Again, the reference to social media as a potential cause for alleged upticks in trans kids is a talking point being pushed by some without evidence. It's often referred to as "social contagion", and it's being used as one of the wedges to try and paint many of these kids as confused and not "really" trans.

 

The biggest work was being done in Germany around 1910 up to the 30's (Institut für Sexualwissenschaft - Wikipedia). I'm sure you can work out what happened to it. My key point here though was merely to point out that we've been conscious of trans people being a real thing for a very very long time. It's not a new trend or fad. As for nature/nurture, I generally feel nurture doesn't work that way. In the end though, I let the medical professionals do the work and update us if they find links contrary to current understanding.

I think there can be good things to come out of more general discussion. But my caution is based on a lot of loud voices out there saying they're "just asking questions" and then only seeking out and platforming the most negative voices and stories, while pretending the positive ones don't exist. Often the negative stories aren't even verifiable, but it doesn't stop people latching on to them and saying "well even if it's not true, imagine if it was, why do you want to mutilate kids" etc etc.

End of the day, my main position is that these things are for patients to discuss with their health professionals. Discussion outside of that needs a lot of care to avoid bolstering the people who just don't want trans people to exist.

I don't want to pick around the edges of this with you. We've not engaged personally but from what you post I respect where you come from. Hopefully we can all get to where mutual respect wins the day and knee jerk bigotry dies. Have a great and boozy evening.

[lippy 771]

6 hours ago, mistercwood said:

Again, the reference to social media as a potential cause for alleged upticks in trans kids is a talking point being pushed by some without evidence. It's often referred to as "social contagion", and it's being used as one of the wedges to try and paint many of these kids as confused and not "really" trans.

I really agree with pretty much everything you're saying, but I wonder about the point you're making above...the idea of "social contagion" where Facebook is churning out trans people is pure BS of course, but I think social media has had a big impact in allowing trans people to spread their stories and that's been at least part of an increase of awareness/acceptance.  For the X% of people who have been trans since long before we were using that word for it, this is just reducing the stigma for them to lead their lives as their true selves and that's nothing but a good thing.

Where I wonder if there's anything to the 'alleged uptick', is the idea that for kids who are growing up and trying to figure out who they are, they're likely to try on many hats in that search.  These days, now that this is a more acceptable option on the menu, so to speak, will it lead to at least a perceived uptick of people experimenting with living life as trans while trying to figure themselves out?

I have no evidence of that happening and maybe I'm way off base, it's just what I'd assume is happening on at least some level.

[mistercwood 287]

13 hours ago, lippy said:

I have no evidence of that happening and maybe I'm way off base, it's just what I'd assume is happening on at least some level.

Oh 100% agreed, I probably could have been clearer. Yes there's an uptick, though nearly not as much as is being painted by some, and yes it will be for the reason you mentioned, better acceptance and understanding at a broad level. My critique is of those who think people can be influenced into being trans, or that it's only increasing because it's become "trendy". This is akin to blaming the increase in left-handedness over the last century as being caused by trendiness. Lol.

[winsor 186]

In grad school there was a guy who fancied himself as a real car guy.  He had a Volkswagen on which he put a fiberglass body (Replicar), and he then tried to register it as a 1938 Frasier Nash.  He was incensed when the dullards at DMV insisted in identifying it as a 1968 Volkswagen.

There are all kinds of custom cars out there, some of which are latish model Chevys with vintage looking bodies installed.  Very nifty.

I've known people who had wonderful replica autos, AC Cobras come to mind.  One guy had an AC Cobra replica that was head and shoulders above the original.

Having said that the difference in price between an original 427 Cobra and the new manufacture version is orders of magnitude.  Regardless of how wonderful is the new version, if you were to put it up for sale as an original it would constitute fraud.

Having been around original equipment women and the aftermarket variety for rather a while, I am fine with either (socially, at least).  When someone claims that there is no difference,  I take the DOT stance.

 

BSBD,

Winsor

 

[wmw999 2,122]

9 hours ago, winsor said:

Having been around original equipment women and the aftermarket variety for rather a while, I am fine with either (socially, at least).  When someone claims that there is no difference,  I take the DOT stance.

I don’t think a lot of people are saying there’s no difference. They’re saying our current either/or registration system is at fault, as is our conception of women as people who can mother babies. As someone who will look for a star in the East if she ever mothers another baby, I call bullshit on that definition. As the friend of someone who was born with a full complement of original equipment for both genders, and people who didn’t accept the OEM designation, I’ll agree we’re a little too simplistic. Kind of like how we were with the assigning of all disease to one of the four humors.

Those of you still discussing which humor is correct are kind of missing the point.

Wendy P. 

[SkyDekker 1,122]

On 9/25/2023 at 5:38 PM, winsor said:

In grad school there was a guy who fancied himself as a real car guy.  He had a Volkswagen on which he put a fiberglass body (Replicar), and he then tried to register it as a 1938 Frasier Nash.  He was incensed when the dullards at DMV insisted in identifying it as a 1968 Volkswagen.

There are all kinds of custom cars out there, some of which are latish model Chevys with vintage looking bodies installed.  Very nifty.

I've known people who had wonderful replica autos, AC Cobras come to mind.  One guy had an AC Cobra replica that was head and shoulders above the original.

Having said that the difference in price between an original 427 Cobra and the new manufacture version is orders of magnitude.  Regardless of how wonderful is the new version, if you were to put it up for sale as an original it would constitute fraud.

Having been around original equipment women and the aftermarket variety for rather a while, I am fine with either (socially, at least).  When someone claims that there is no difference,  I take the DOT stance.

 

BSBD,

Winsor

 

I am so surprised you compare women to an object you can own. So completely out of character.

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

4 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

I am so surprised you compare women to an object you can own. So completely out of character.

He also does a very fine job of creating an argument that nobody actually makes.

[SkyDekker 1,122]

1 minute ago, wolfriverjoe said:

He also does a very fine job of creating an argument that nobody actually makes.

Sure, but that is standard.

[winsor 186]

On 9/26/2023 at 6:06 AM, wmw999 said:

I don’t think a lot of people are saying there’s no difference. They’re saying our current either/or registration system is at fault, as is our conception of women as people who can mother babies. As someone who will look for a star in the East if she ever mothers another baby, I call bullshit on that definition. As the friend of someone who was born with a full complement of original equipment for both genders, and people who didn’t accept the OEM designation, I’ll agree we’re a little too simplistic. Kind of like how we were with the assigning of all disease to one of the four humors.

Those of you still discussing which humor is correct are kind of missing the point.

Wendy P. 

To conflate someone who was born with both sets of apparatus with someone who decides to change teams is disingenuous.

Dylan Mulvaney might be a lot of things, but "woman" is not on the short list.

There have been people living as the other sex throughout history - females with fake beards to be a Pharaoh, actors in ancient Greece who played only roles of the opposite sex and so forth.

People getting surgery to present as other species, taking 'furry' to another level. is apparently a thing.  An acquaintance has made a fortune 'transitioning' people who seek to customize their sexuality surgically.

I understand the issues stemming from someone with a entirely legitimate congenital anomaly.  If I'm expected to 'respect' people's severe mental issues, I can't help you.

 

BSBD,
Winsor

[wmw999 2,122]

Oh my. You pontificate even better than I do. Good thing I can assign qualities to you without your needing to provide input on what they are. It’s like saying you know art, and can therefore say that Picasso is no artist.

How offensive exactly is it to you to address someone by a pronoun they choose, rather than you? And have you ever actually had to? 

Wendy P. 

[airdvr 197]

On 10/21/2023 at 1:20 PM, wmw999 said:

How offensive exactly is it to you to address someone by a pronoun they choose, rather than you? And have you ever actually had to? 

Wendy P. 

I've been a bit puzzled by the pronoun thing.  How am I to know their preference without asking?

[SkyDekker 1,122]

2 minutes ago, airdvr said:

I've been a bit puzzled by the pronoun thing.  How am I to know their preference without asking?

Why is that puzzling to you? That seems logical to me. Jut like if they ask me to use a different pronoun, I will do my best to try and use that.

 

None of this seems very complicated. What is puzzling me is who this is complicated for.

[billvon 2,400]

40 minutes ago, airdvr said:

I've been a bit puzzled by the pronoun thing.  How am I to know their preference without asking?

?? Well, you can listen to other people talk to them, or about them.  Or you can read their email threads.  Or you can just ask.

I mean, suppose you meet someone on the street and you don't know their name.  What do you do?

Or suppose you meet someone named Chris and can't tell if they are male or female.  What do you do?

Or suppose you meet your old friend Sarah, and she just got married, and you don't know if she changed her name when she got married.  What do you do?

I'm 99.9% sure you have experienced these in your lifetime.  And I bet you figured it out then, too.

[wmw999 2,122]

I have a niece who was apparently male at birth. She has made it abundantly clear that mistakes are perfectly OK; repeat ones, too (like an aunt using her old name more than once a few years ago). It’s deliberately provocative misgendering or refusing to engage when asked politely to use the correct pronoun or name.

Wendy P. 

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

1 hour ago, airdvr said:

I've been a bit puzzled by the pronoun thing.  How am I to know their preference without asking?

If you aren't sure, ask.

I know a few trans folks. It's pretty clear how they identify. It's NOTclear what their preferred pronouns are.
The 'interesting' part is that those folks are clearly gratified to be asked.
It's apparent that the 'asking' part doesn't insult them.
It makes it clear that I want to address them they way THEY WANT TO BE and that I will respect their desires in that area.

OTOH, my younger sister has a daughter, Alice. Just turned 20. Identifies as female, but goes with 'they/them/their'. 
And prefers to be called "Al".

I have asked my sister if her daughter is familiar with the Paul Simon tune, and she wasn't sure.

https://www.google.com/search?gs_ssp=eJzj4tFP1zcsNjAtj7c0ijdg9BItSCzNUSjOzM3PU0hOzMlRyE1VSMwBANJDC6g&q=paul+simon+call+me+al&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS910US910&oq=Paul+Simon+call+&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqBwgBEC4YgAQyBggAEEUYOTIHCAEQLhiABDIHCAIQABiABDIHCAMQABiABDIHCAQQABiABDIHCAUQABiABDIHCAYQABiABDIHCAcQABiABDIHCAgQABiABNIBCDc3NDJqMGo3qAIAsAIA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8