If I could just rattle the bones of this thread a little, I have a personal philosophy that if I have the freedom to walk outside in a dress and makeup then others have the freedom to dislike that I do. There is no reliable way to convince someone to change their mind, people have to come to their own conclusions in their own time.
I agree with you that each person can make up their own mind about my life needs and choices. However if that decision is based on myth, misunderstanding, bad or even intentionally incorrect information, I would like the opportunity to at least provide accurate data for them. Getting out and interacting with others, being a normal adult with the only difference being how I express my gender has been helping provide some of that correction. I don't know if I've changed anyone's mind, but I do believe they are more willing now to be an ally to other transgender people and our place in society than they were before. There are a few who have been close to me in the past but I don't expect will change their opinion and it definitely is their right, but at least there is the possibility I've provided an exception to their formerly hard line opinion.Originally Posted by AngelaYVR
Sarah
Being transgender isn't a lifestyle choice. How you deal with it is.
I agree. Now, I don't believe that anyone is going to have a "light bulb moment" the next time they encounter a TG person, and some people are so filled with fear that they may never give up their hatred, but I am dead certain that every little bit helps. A pleasant smile and ladylike manners are positively disarming. I've seen that simple approach change the atmosphere in a restaurant or other gathering place. Humans are creatures bound by a complex social protocol, one of the quirks of which is how we take our cues from others around us. If you can make the waitress happy, for example, you will notice the other patrons relaxing a bit, not always, but often enough that it is plain to see if you look for it.
Calling bigotry an "opinion" is like calling arsenic a "flavor".
Megan,
I'm not trying to trigger you here, and please believe me that I'm arguing in good faith. I've read your post on JK Rowling and it seems to me like you're defending Rowling's position that 'sex is real'. And you went on to state you will 'always be genetically male' (even though I assume you have transitioned and identified as trans) and that 'sex is immutable'. But you also made a very important caveat to say that your position specifically omits 'genetic abnormalities'.
If I'm misrepresenting you here, you can just ignore this message right away, or just correct me. I want to be fair to you by correctly representing your position.
I'm not wishing to argue the science with you, but rather scrutinize your way of thinking about this issue. The argument that 'sex is real', and 'sex is immutable', are both very different arguments and we should not conflate the two. The former demands a degree of subjectivity, while the latter demands a similar degree of objectivity. Sex, depending on how you define it, in this case, genetic sex, as it turns out, is immutable. That means, it cannot be changed, at least not with our current state of technology.
However, just because it is immutable, doesn't mean it doesn't vary within a population (which are what you term the 'anomalies'). Much like how you can't change the colour of the sky (which is most of the time blue), therefore the colour of the sky is immutable (at least we can't change it with our current state of technology), but the sky can also sometimes turn red during a sunset, or turn grey during a rainy day, or turn dark or black during the night.
Are you still with me? Good.
To say that 'sex is immutable' and therefore it is 'real', requires a degree of interpretation which is prone to errors. If were to put forth a counter-argument, to propose that if 'sex was somehow mutable' (maybe technology might one day permit us to do so), does that make it any less 'real' by then? Is a blue sky more 'real' than a red sky?
I'm not saying that sex ought to be 'real' or 'unreal', but we ought to focus more on the context here on what Rowling is defending. I don't want to speak for the entire trans-community, but as far as I was concerned, the biggest challenge I faced was trying to overcome what philosophers term 'metaphysical scepticism', which is a line of questioning to deduce or ascertain the existence of a particular 'something'. It is the Cartesian doubt that questions the existence of everything.
Some of the most ardent transphobes don't just argue that transfolks are evil, they argue that transfolks don't exist therefore they aren't 'real'. And that argument had been used to justify a swathe of mistreatment and prejudice. Rowling was very careful to point out that she ISN'T a transphobe by saying that she endorses people's freedom to date who they want, to dress how they want, or even to identify as whoever they want, except... she just won't accept these people as real...? *shrugs, not sure how to take that?*
And here's the real kicker, if I can't argue that I'm real, neither can Rowling.
The REAL problem here isn't about what is 'real' or 'unreal', it is the large scale disavowing and denial of hate and prejudice. Because the truth is this, the sky is as real as you want it to be, and the same applies to transpeople. People have a choice to treat us as 'real people', deserving of rights and respect, and likewise, they have a choice to do the opposite. Instead, they seek deniability by arguing 'I didn't say you were UNREAL, science did', which is categorically false. (Science have proven there to be variation in sex genes within a population, just like how there is a blue sky, and a red sky. It never asserted which one is more real.)
Again, I'm not trying to shame you or trigger you. I'm not arguing that sex ought to be real or not, or that Rowling was right or wrong, I'm just scrutinising your thought processes that's all.
Personally, I wasn't offended by what Rowling said, simply because she doesn't have that kind of power over me. But there are still valid reasons for calling her out simply because we need to make her take ownership for her own prejudice. We need to do that with everyone who perpetuates transphobic rhetoric.
It is OK to be 'gender critical', but take ownership for it. Don't let people get away by sying that 'science thinks you're not real', instead, we ought to replace that with 'I think you are not real, and the science has nothing to do with it.'
S
Last edited by sarahcsc; 01-23-2020 at 10:43 AM.
"The question isn't who is going to let me; it's who is going to stop me" - Ayn Rand
Angela,
It's quite correct what you say but it also means they have the freedom to like you and your presentation , that's mostly what I'm seeing and it does feel good .
Posting Permissions
