GC: How problematic is accepting a man as a woman or a woman as a man if they pass well enough? And what problems does that bring?

submitted by Tea_Or_Coffee from self.GCdebatesQT

In the LGBDropTheT sub, there are people who think we should accept a man as a woman, or a woman as a man, especially if they pass well enough: https://saidit.net/s/LGBDropTheT/comments/7sjh/agb_user_goes_on_a_date_with_a_trans_man_but/t8hy

The thread is long, so I'm highlighting a few comments:

It doesn't cost me anything to call a trans man "he", especially since many trans men do pass as males.

we can do as much as to accept them as women and men in everyday life.

I will never ask anyone to bend to their toxic ideas; I just ask to call them men and women, accordingly – and no, I'm not asking you to humor the "tree" insane lunatics or any other nonsense. Doing this much is usually enough to not be seen as a transphobe in the eyes of rational people and it should keep you safe from a ban.

https://saidit.net/s/LGBDropTheT/comments/7sjh/agb_user_goes_on_a_date_with_a_trans_man_but/t8pj

We're not talking about some incredibly powerful foreign force that wants to redefine what you understand as your female or male view of the world. We're talking about 0.3% of population who feel like they were born in body of wrong sex and want to live a difficult life of pretending that isn't the case.

I don't demand anything. I merely ask, as I think it's a decent thing to do, in realistic situation when someone actually pass as the other sex. If some attention starved teenage girl says on her bio on Twitter that she's a boy now, but makes no effort to look like one and she cries how the world is transphobic to her, that's delusional and childish. But if someone makes an effort and looks like a woman, to get out of your way and call them a "man" just because you happen to know their biolgocial sex is an asshole move.

silencing people with censorship (something they do) is no way to acheive this, just like misgendering them (something you do) is not.

https://saidit.net/s/LGBDropTheT/comments/7sjh/agb_user_goes_on_a_date_with_a_trans_man_but/t8qz

Trans people want to pass as their desired gender.

I don't believe they're lying at all. I think it is possible for someone to be born in body of wrong sex.

https://saidit.net/s/LGBDropTheT/comments/7sjh/agb_user_goes_on_a_date_with_a_trans_man_but/t8rw

Prove people can't be born in the wrong sex, please. I can't wait to see your mind penetrating machine.

https://saidit.net/s/LGBDropTheT/comments/7sjh/agb_user_goes_on_a_date_with_a_trans_man_but/t8sw

You say we can AT LEAST accept them as men and women, but that itself has caused the current issues we are in?

No, it didn't and you know this well. They have been pusing progressive and homophobic propaganda onto everyone for years, claiming that gender is the deciding factor of sexual orientation. OP of that thread fell to the very romanticized idea of "giving a chance", "being open-minded" and "looking to broad his experiences". He was manipulated into uncomfortable position (and potentially dangerous) and now both him and that trans guy are suffering because of this = a perfect proof that this propaganda should never be allowed to reach young people's mind.

I won't argue with you that it didn't go too far – of course it did. But I can recognize where their right overleaps mine and calling someone their desired pronouns in the internet argument is realistically not that.

https://saidit.net/s/LGBDropTheT/comments/7sjh/agb_user_goes_on_a_date_with_a_trans_man_but/t92f

brain-sex is still a hotly debated topic as there is conflicting research on it. until a scientific consensus is reached, believing or not believing that "someone can be born in the wrong sexed body" is simply a matter of personal opinion at this point.

https://saidit.net/s/LGBDropTheT/comments/7sjh/agb_user_goes_on_a_date_with_a_trans_man_but/t907

Because there is no proof people can be born in the wrong sex, and there is no proof people can not be born in the wrong sex, believing people can or can not be born in the wrong body or sex is just a matter of opinion?

The commenters do not think that accepting a man as a woman or a woman as a man has led to the current situation. They think that gender and sex are separate, gender is created by humans and it is possible to accept a man as a woman or a man as a woman socially without letting men in spaces of women or women in spaces of men. That it is a matter of courtesy and respect to call someone by their preferred pronouns, or consider them the gender they want to be as long as they pass as that gender. And that it would be rude, disrespectful, hateful and transphobic to call a man who passes and identifies as a woman a man, or a woman who passes and identifies as a man a woman.

They also think gender is not problematic, it does not reduce people to sexist roles because humans are realistically bags of meat. By saying gender reduces people to sexist roles we're romanticizing humanity.

So what do you think? How problematic is accepting a man as a woman or a woman as a man if they pass well enough? And what problems does that bring?

Is it just a matter of opinion that people can not be born in the wrong sex or body?

Is there proof that people can not be born in the wrong sex or body?

Is it hateful, rude and disrespectful to call a man who identifies and passes as a woman a man, or a woman who identifies and passes as a man a woman?

Did accepting a man as a woman or a woman as a man have any effect on what we see trans right activists do now? And what were these effects?

all 20 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]BiologyIsReal 18 insightful - 1 fun18 insightful - 0 fun19 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Nobody is born in the wrong body. Your brain is a part of your body. An atypical brain doesn't make you the opposite sex. Also, if the brain theory were true, then why don't they make brain scans to determine who is truly trans? (Just a rethorical question).

Trans people are free to believe they are the opposite sex if they want. It's not reasonable, however, to expect that everyone else goes along with such beliefs. To force people to treat them as if they were "social women" (or "men") seems like a form of compelled spech. I don't share the idea that don't using prefered pronouns it's a rude, or worse, extremist position. Pronouns and the words women, men, female and male are not insults. Moreover, this "basic courtesy" we are being asked to do is pretty one-sided. Nobody asked me if I find the association of womanhood with sexist stereotypes (which trans people usually rely on to "pass") offensive, for instance.

As for how good is the idea of "social women" (or "men") is, well... I think it's extremely problematic. Part of the reason, I think, we are in this situation is because society have been politely going along with trans people's beliefs for too long. The issue is that treating them as honoraries members of the opposite sex creates the appearance that other people really believe in trans' "identities". And many trans people need external validation because, it seems, that deep down they don't believe in their chosen "identities", either. So, they will keep asking for more.

When transactivists lobbied for the self-ID (though they didn't call it that way, obviously) to be passed in my country, they focused on the concept of identity. They said the law wouldn't affect anyone else and it would only make their lives easier. Just a change in their documents, they say. However, it didn't stay that way. It turns out that if you make someone legally a "woman" (or a "man"), then you have to treat them as such in all aspects. Who would have thought it, right? Transactivists here, in preparation for the gender identity law, also make sure to "educate" local journalists about how this law didn't affect anyone else and "inclusive language" like prefered pronouns. You know, so journalists would be able to "explain" this stuff to general public properly.

[–]MarkTwainiac 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I don't share the idea that don't using prefered pronouns it's a rude, or worse, extremist position. Pronouns and the words women, men, female and male are not insults. Moreover, this "basic courtesy" we are being asked to do is pretty one-sided. Nobody asked me if I find the association of womanhood with sexist stereotypes (which trans people usually rely on to "pass") offensive, for instance.

Yes, no one asked any of us. Moreover, the very same people who insist that others call them what they are not out of "respect" and "civility" seem to have no problem insulting women not just by reducing us to the sexist stereotypes they choose to ape, but by constantly calling us all the age-old slurs (such as cunt, bitch, whore, hag, old biddy, cow, slut) and by inventing a whole bunch of brand-new ways to demean and dehumanize us (vagina-owner, menstruator, uterus-haver, gestator, bleeder, etc) and to demonize us (TERF, SWERF, Nazi, Karen, causers of mass suicides).

But as those familiar with the etymology of the word "courtesy" and the history of manners and etiquette customs know, it's always people with the most power and privilege in societies who get to decide and dictate to everyone else exactly what constitutes courteous speech, behavior and dress and what is considered rude, impertinent, offensive and unacceptable. (After all, courtesy/courteous originally referred to the strict codes of etiquette governing how people dressed, spoke and conducted themselves in royal courts; and the notion of "acceptable" evolved from a term meaning "to take something to/for oneself.")

As the brilliant work of Norbert Elias first elucidated, and others have expanded on since, the entire enterprise of establishing social rules determining what's courteous and what's discourteous (impolite, rude, ill-mannered, etc) in Western culture has always been at least partly motivated by the desire of those who are dominant & most powerful to assert power & control over the individuals and classes below them, and to keep those with inferior status in our place - in part by keeping us so busy trying to learn, understand & conform to the set of burdensome and often constantly changing rules concerning minutiae that we don't have the time or energy to challenge the unreasonable, tyrannical exercise of power & control that's going on, or to notice & see it for what it is in the first place.

There's a long-running debate over whether the words "polite" and "politics" have the same root...But there's no doubt that when certain persons or groups of people demand that everyone else in the world speak to and about them using words that they alone have decided on and dictate to us the hoi polloi, they are engaging in a power play and dominance display merely disguised as a matter of principle and "politeness." If the words they demand we use for them actually run counter to reality, our own perceptions and what everyone knows to be true, these people are not only committing mass gaslighting in the guise of exercising their basic "human rights" and seeking "respect" - they are trying to get us to agree to do things that involve relinquishing our own human rights and diminishing our own self-respect. To which I think the only reasonable response goes something like this: https://youtu.be/ccenFp_3kq8

And like this: https://youtu.be/Lpds3V90VbM https://youtu.be/EKTPij6Kb6E https://youtu.be/QodGtTU69uQ

Since I've got YouTube open, these standards from 1963/64 seem apropos too: https://youtu.be/JDUjeR01wnU https://youtu.be/q4nmxz5bQhk https://youtu.be/RTVqZNObw5o

[–][deleted] 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

When transactivists lobbied for the self-ID (though they didn't call it that way, obviously) to be passed in my country, they focused on the concept of identity. They said the law wouldn't affect anyone else and it would only make their lives easier.

I don't know about other countries, but there are no such legal entities as "gender" and "identity" in the U.S. Activists insisting otherwise are lying. Activist organizations representing those claims are lying. The lie is based on a conceit that the legal definition of sex is transitive: if gender (because it's commonly used as a synonym for sex) = sex and sex is a protected category, then gender is a protected category. Once this is established, in accordance with QT concepts of fluidity, "gender" opens up to mean whatever the individual wants it to mean.

This is what hardcore Queer Theory looks like in action. Because relativistic fluidity applies to everything, it must also apply to legal definitions (categories) of things. It can admit no exceptions -- that would concede that rigor and structure have indisposable functions in the critique of reality.

[–]BiologyIsReal 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I'm from Argentina. Sorry, I should have specified. Here in 2012, a law was passed legalizing both self-ID and "medical transition" (before then, "SRS" was only possible with a judicial order, something that didn't start happening until around mid 90's).

[–]NerveActive 13 insightful - 5 fun13 insightful - 4 fun14 insightful - 5 fun -  (0 children)

Because you give an inch they take a mile. This is how this all started, people decided to be nice and use correct pronouns and look at us now: biological males competing with females and crying bigotry if anyone criticizes it, lots of people pretending biological sex is not real or is an spectrum, that transwomen are 100% the same as women, that lesbians are evil for not being interested in TW, defunding rape shelters that don't accept biological males...

[–]adungitit 13 insightful - 3 fun13 insightful - 2 fun14 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

I do not define men and women according to how well they "pass" because I do not define men and women according to misogyny, I define them according to their actual biology. As such, I do not think that gender nonconforming women, or women with more testosterone than expected of women, are male. Nor do I believe I become a man every time people mistake me for a man. The fact that the trans community has trouble grasping the fact that you do not become something just because you trick people that you are it is still unbelievable to me. I can lie that I'm a part of the royal family, that wouldn't actually make me as such if enough people believed it.

Lots of people can struggle understanding this because radical feminism spends a lot of time discussing gendered socialisation and resulting biases, which is consistent with sex because you need to be male or female in order for society to treat you as such. This does not mean that women or men are born with gendered socialisation but that gendered socialisation is inevitable under a patriarchal system and until that system and the ideologies furthering it are completely removed, men and women are going to fall into gendered behaviour, and need to put extensive work into undoing it. And no, the trans community, rife with overt misogyny, absolutely does not provide an environment ideal for this, in fact it feeds off of the same ideals as the patriarchy does for the sake of gender-affirmation.

Now, what you can argue is that a trans person passing as the opposite sex makes it more likely that they experience a part of the gendered socialisation targeted at the opposite sex. This does not negate their gendered childhood (the most vulnerable years of human development) and frequently extensive years beyond that, their resulting gendered biases and the simple fact that they are biologically merely modified members of their own sex. You can argue this, but in my experiences, passing male trans people are just as misogynistic and male-acting as the non-passing ones, so this statement isn't going to go unchallenged, much like any other statement claiming that a percentage of men is not problematic by virtue of them claiming they aren't, or because they're disadvantaged by other men.

Is there proof that people can not be born in the wrong sex or body?

Is there proof that a person cannot have the soul of a wolf? Or an anime character?

Even if people can be born in the wrong sex or body, there's a leap from that to "I am the opposite sex and I deserve equal protections as the actual members of the opposite sex because I feel I should belong to the opposite sex".

Is it hateful, rude and disrespectful to call a man who identifies and passes as a woman a man, or a woman who identifies and passes as a man a woman?

I think any ideology that relies on defining women according to things other than the simple fact of being biologically female is harmful to women. The inevitable assumptions of what makes a woman more of a woman (feminine clothing, feminine mannerisms, ladybrains, how sexually attractive she is etc.) have shown time and time again to work against women's well-being and dignity. I do not see it as a matter of courtesy and respect to entertain misogynistic ideologies and how those define women.

[–][deleted] 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

So what do you think? How problematic is accepting a man as a woman or a woman as a man if they pass well enough?

Extremely problematic, because sex is biologically determined. Not problematic if we agree that trans women are trans women and trans men are trans men -- that's a social definition, not a biological one. (How we organize society around that understanding is a different and very long convo.)

Is it just a matter of opinion that people can not be born in the wrong sex or body?

Completely. It's a metaphysical argument.

Is there proof that people can not be born in the wrong sex or body?

No. It's still a metaphysical argument; we have no evidence that consciousness is "sexed."

Is it hateful, rude and disrespectful to call a man who identifies and passes as a woman a man, or a woman who identifies and passes as a man a woman?

Biologically, no -- if by "call" you mean "categorize." That's a scientific process.

Socially, yes -- if by "call" you mean "punitively misgender." That's a social convention.

Did accepting a man as a woman or a woman as a man have any effect on what we see trans right activists do now?

Without question.

And what were these effects?

A dangerous denial of science.

ETA bonus considerations:

They also think gender is not problematic, it does not reduce people to sexist roles because humans are realistically bags of meat.

That's a materialistic interpretation of humanity. Compare with the metaphysical argument; they can't be held simultaneously.

Because there is no proof people can be born in the wrong sex, and there is no proof people can not be born in the wrong sex, believing people can or can not be born in the wrong body or sex is just a matter of opinion?

You've got it. It's an opinion, though it's sometimes advanced as a metaphysical argument.

Also, "passing" is a vague concept for them to be using. It's probably better to make a distinction based on self-ID ("I am whatever I say I am, and you must accept the assertion") and medical transitioning ("I am therapeutically presenting as the other sex in response to profound GD, and I ask you to socially support the presentation").

The commenters do not think that accepting a man as a woman or a woman as a man has led to the current situation.

It absolutely has. Self-IDing and its aggressive support strategies have largely created the current situation.

[–]Tea_Or_Coffee[S] 3 insightful - 5 fun3 insightful - 4 fun4 insightful - 5 fun -  (1 child)

Socially, yes -- if by "call" you mean "punitively misgender." That's a social convention.

Then everyone should socially call a man who identifies and passes as a woman a woman, or a woman who identifies and passes as a man a man because otherwise it would be rude, disrespectful and hateful?

Completely. It's a metaphysical argument.

No. It's still a metaphysical argument; we have no evidence that consciousness is "sexed."

I agree we have no evidence consciousness or brain is sexed, but if we have no evidence consciousness and brain are not sexed either, how do we move forward? We are stuck in the middle with no information.

A dangerous denial of science.

Can you elaborate more on this please? If you could, with analogies maybe?

[–][deleted] 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Then everyone should socially call a man who identifies and passes as a woman a woman, or a woman who identifies and passes as a man a man because otherwise it would be rude, disrespectful and hateful?

"Should?" No. Several reasons:

In the U.S., that would be considered "compelled speech." There is also a critical question of Constitutional law (First Amendment) over the intersection of congressional mandates and the practices and conventions of a citizen's religion. This is currently playing out here in the courts.

Outside the U.S., that question will be determined by sovereign national governments and the membership-guided influence of international bodies. Law, policy, and response will vary widely -- consider the recent actions of policing bodies in Scotland censuring rudeness on social media. It's impossible to impose a global legal or political "should" on speech, and questionable at best to socially compel that across cultures.

I agree we have no evidence consciousness or brain is sexed, but if we have no evidence consciousness and brain are not sexed either, how do we move forward? We are stuck in the middle with no information.

That's the question, isn't it? We're operating on best evidence, and in some fields (consciousness studies) evidence moves slowly.

Can you elaborate more on this please? If you could, with analogies maybe?

Everything I've already said here about biology, medicine, and first principles of evidence covers that.

(ETA if anyone wants to poke around consciousness studies, my personal favorite program is at The Johns Hopkins University -- be warned, its orientation is clinical and therapeutic, not philosophical.)

[–]Juniperius 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It is incoherent to claim that someone can be "in the wrong body." It makes no sense. Thoughts, consciousness, sensations, the things that make up a "self," are epiphenomena of the body. They're processes that a body performs. Saying someone is trapped in the wrong body is like saying a flame is trapped on the wrong candle.

[–]JoeyJoeJoe 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Unfortunately, when nuanced discussion is effectively banned from the mainstream, it drives the argument to the extremes.

Get the discourse balanced, allow openly gender critical debates to take place without abuse of power & censorship, then maybe you can arrive at this 'please be kind' agreement you're pitching.

For the moment though, under the truly hostile & blatantly deceptive narrative we see everywhere, I have more sympathy for the anti-trans extremists.

[–]adungitit 9 insightful - 4 fun9 insightful - 3 fun10 insightful - 4 fun -  (0 children)

I have more sympathy for the anti-trans extremists.

I have as much sympathy for your average male misogynist slinging slurs like tr***y as I have for them slinging slurs at any other group every time their fucked up patriarchal supremacist hierarchy gets questioned. It's gross that these men are grouped in the same basket as the women literally trying to preserve their hard-won rights to spaces free from male violence and bigotry, and to refuse being defined further according to male biases and ideas about what women should be.

[–]usehername 6 insightful - 5 fun6 insightful - 4 fun7 insightful - 5 fun -  (0 children)

It's a lie and lying is wrong. Simple.

[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 6 fun5 insightful - 5 fun6 insightful - 6 fun -  (1 child)

It seems like a denial of reality and an acceptance of hard truths if trans people who 'pass' are accepted. There's denial by not acknowledging sex (though that could be due to lack of awareness) but there's acceptance of the validity of sex role stereotypes. It's problematic because there's picking and choosing what to acknowledge of reality, which is something that anyone then can manipulate for whatever reason. Human predators often hide in plain sight, and trans rights and self ID policies and laws make for a great environment for predators to operate in. Being able to appear as anything that you aren't or to be invisible is what a predator relies on.

It's a matter of opinion that people cannot be born in the wrong sex body, but it may be an informed opinion based on all the best evidence and facts.

I think the best proof of not being able to be born in the wrong body is that there is no evidence that supports it. Even if brain sex were to be a thing, that doesn't mean that the brain is in the wrong body, it just developed differently. And that's all the real evidence is that exists: that a person just develops differently in some ways and the interplay of their experiences, environment and biology is what leads to transsexualism, not being 'born in the wrong body'.

I think any word or term or phrase or look could be rude and disrespectful depending on intent, context and tone. And what one person may consider rude may not be considered so by another. The key might be whether a person is being denied acknowledgement of their personhood or they're being disregarded in some way, which really might make a person feel low or 'lesser than'.

Accepting women as men and men as women based on mandates and force seems to have empowered trans rights activists to make more and more demands. They realize how much power they have and are abusing it. The most egregious and worrying effects I think we're seeing is the erosion of others' boundaries and space, as well as a resolve to transition children at any whiff of gender non-conformity. Altering one's own identity seems to lead to increasing disinhibition and an overall attitude that the ends justify the means, which makes it easier to violate others and others' rights.

[–][deleted] 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Human predators often hide in plain sight, and trans rights and self ID policies and laws make for a great environment for predators to operate in.

This is absolutely and horrifically true.

Concepts around paraphilias aside, it's a mistake to overly conflate trans culture with abusers (as in "we solve this, and we solve camouflaged abuse") -- which people who are experiencing this as a "first scandal" may be tempted to think. As you point out, environmental camouflage is key. Recently: Exhibit A, the Catholic Church (wealth, power, opacity, international reach). Exhibit B, guru movements (countercultural cachet, "peace and love" manifestos, "enlightened" social conventions). Predators will prey; after this, they'll concentrate in the next optimal environment.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Not gonna address the sub comments you pasted because they aren’t your comments, and if I were going to address them, I’d rather it be with the people who made the statements themselves.

Also, a lot of what you asked seems to be the same question reworded, so I didn’t address every sentence you typed.

“Because there is no proof people can be born in the wrong sex, and there is no proof people can not be born in the wrong sex”

How is someone born the “wrong” sex? What is right or wrong about either sex? Particularly since they claim they aren’t relying on gender stereotypes/roles?

“believing people can or can not be born in the wrong body or sex is just a matter of opinion?”

I don’t think so. I don’t really see how anyone can be born the right or wrong sex. But I’m not sexist, so maybe that’s why.

“The commenters do not think that accepting a man as a woman or a woman as a man has led to the current situation.”

The comments you link think that, not everyone participating in the conversation.

“They think that gender and sex are separate, gender is created by humans”

They are separate, but they rely on each other (at least gender relies on sex, sex stands on its own). Tras are still misusing the word gender, separate or not.

“and it is possible to accept a man as a woman or a man as a woman socially without letting men in spaces of women or women in spaces of men.”

Is it? How do you say “you’re a social woman, but stay out of female spaces in society”? How do you justify it, if you accept them as women? It is however, possible to accept someone as trans without giving them permission to disregard sex based spaces.

“That it is a matter of courtesy and respect to call someone by their preferred pronouns, or consider them the gender they want to be as long as they pass as that gender. »

Ugh my phone started doing that arrow thing again, anyways

It’s a matter of courtesy and respect to not demand that people lie for your benefit. Also- passing is so subjective, so even if I agreed with this, that still means most trans people will end up not being addressed as they wish.

« And that it would be rude, disrespectful, hateful and transphobic to call a man who passes and identifies as a woman a man, or a woman who passes and identifies as a man a woman. »

So the truth is rude, disrespectful, and hateful? But not the demand that people gaslight and guilt themselves to appease you? The narcissism is real.

« They also think gender is not problematic, »

Most people who benefit from gender tend to think this...

« it does not reduce people to sexist roles because humans are realistically bags of meat. By saying gender reduces people to sexist roles we're romanticizing humanity. »

That’s stupid lol. Gender is nothing more than sexist roles, expectations, and limitations.

« How problematic is accepting a man as a woman or a woman as a man if they pass well enough? »

Very.

« And what problems does that bring? »

All of the issues currently heavily debated and discussed today. From general understanding of sex and biology, female rights being undermined and undone, pressuring others to play pretend or suffer the consequences of acknowledging reality, denying people the ability to give informed consent, calling sexuality bigotry, males in female sports, children being experimented on... the list goes on and on

« Is it just a matter of opinion that people can not be born in the wrong sex or body? »

People can’t be. Your body is your body. There’s nothing right or wrong about it. Your sex is your sex. There’s nothing right or wrong about it. And you can’t know your body is « wrong » if it’s all you’ve ever experienced, there can be something wrong with your body, but having a normally developed healthy body is not « wrong » just because you wish you were the opposite sex.

« Is there proof that people can not be born in the wrong sex or body? »

How do you prove something like this, either way? As I said, there can be something physically wrong with your body, but barring that, there’s no logic behind saying that your body is wrong because your brain says so. That would mean there’s an issue with your brain, not your body.

« Is it hateful, rude and disrespectful to call a man who identifies and passes as a woman a man, or a woman who identifies and passes as a man a woman? »

No. They aren’t even actually identifying as a woman/man, they are identifying with their limited understanding of what they think it means to be a woman/man. It’s hateful, rude, and disrespectful (and presumptuous) of them to declare that they identify as something they aren’t, haven’t experienced, can’t explain without sounding like a misogynist, and don’t truly understand.

[–]levoyageur718293 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

The consequence of that belief is that if a person passes well enough as a matter of disguise, regardless of their intention in doing so, then you'd have to accept them as the sex as which they're portraying themselves - and furthermore, that they'd stop being that sex once they take off the disguise, or if it fails.

[–]peakingatthemomentTranssexual (natal male), HSTS 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It’s not even a belief so much I feel like. If someone legitimately passed, any sort of beliefs people might have about “trans rights” or inclusion don’t matter because no one would know. Maybe the OP is using passing differently, but I guess I think of it like living under the radar as the opposite sex. You are right though, if “the disguise fails” or they are outed, everything would change for them.

[–]ausernamee 5 insightful - 5 fun5 insightful - 4 fun6 insightful - 5 fun -  (0 children)

i can interpret "accept as a man or woman" in two ways. 1) accept that their sex has changed, which is a problem because it's a denial of facts, or 2) to treat as man or woman, which equates to asking for special treatment because as someone who is against sexism i make it a point to treat men and women as equal as possible as far as my unknown biases will allow.

separate from the "we're relabeling your orientation for you or you're transphobic" having this conversation with a friend brought up my biggest issues with trans theory.

at the point when the unreasonable demand to treat men and women differently was placed on me, i was 100 percent for twaw, couldn't give a shit about bathroom segregation assuming problems would be dealt with, didn't really engage in how rapey stealthing is because i'm attracted to semen ejaculators so if someone else decided it was their prerogative to stick their dick in random people they don't know the history about that's not really for me to criticize.

no problem with pronouns, off loaded some overly ambitious pants that were going to waste. just simple principles of being polite and respecting people with mental illness made most hypothetical online discussions about what pronoun irrelveant, because who wants to be an asshole.

so, bascially, my friend insisted that it was a problem that i did not see her "like a woman." this didn't come from any kind of rejecting her as a woman, but 100 percent on her part her trying to push gender ideology onto me. over the course of a tooth-pullingly painful conversation she made it clear that if i did not sort men and women by gender and conceive of them differently according to their gender and get a different gendered impression of each group that i was inherently transphobic.

i feel like "some people are males, and some are females. some people like to switch the social role to that of the other sex and approximate their sex. let's help them fit in, like, give them some awesome pants, because they obviously either don't have they best constitution to resist cis gender indoctrination or have sex dysphoria, both of which seem pretty deserving of sympathy." seems like i was going more than halfway when you factor in that the idea that men are men ways and women are women ways is just a method of capitalist control.

but then when she came at with me with the demand that i see her "as a woman" she was also making the demand that i see all females assumed cis as women, and i refuse to do that. to me seeing someone as a woman is just a bunch of nonsense that is layered on top of female bodies and that nonsense should be dispelled. unless she was literally asking me to forget that she was male.

i think it's kind of messed up to list basic facets of being respectful and then impose gender onto them.

to answer what you might not realize, no sex can not change. on the sex side, to see a trans woman as a cis woman is moronic nonsense because she is a trans woman. category 1) women who were born male. caterogry 2) women who were born female.

to ask is the category of women who were born male and the category of women who were born female the same category doesn't make sense as a question. the answer is there in the question. they are categorically different.

so i can only assume, that, she is not trying to convince me that her genotype switched.

so the only other option to accepting her as a woman, would be to have a gendered category of women to slot her into, and as much as i love her, i'm not doing that to other females. also, i'm trans and her concept of being accepted as a woman involved misgendering me and redefining my sexual orientation as well.

she serioulsy thought that i should have broad categories of gendered association for males and females simply so that i could slot her into the female one. that's really messed up. that's basically the opposite of everything every progressive person has ever fought for.

[–]questioningtw 4 insightful - 5 fun4 insightful - 4 fun5 insightful - 5 fun -  (0 children)

Hoestly? I do feel like I am lying to myself if i where to call Blaire White or Laverine Cox he or Chaz Bono Buck Angel she, just because they ARE living as women and a men, even though they where male and female before. I guess, I really just don't like extreme thinking, and I do think if someone actually transitions and is not just someone with a fetish, then their wishes should be honored. I know this is not what most GC people think.