I'm not sure why you've used scare quotes. Or why you are talking about cakes. A cake is a cake whether it is for a gay couple or not. As is a bed.
But anyway, thanks for illustrating exactly why some people have worries over what some aspects of gender identity ideology may lead to.
They're not 'scare quotes'. They indicate that any self-professing Christian who offers accommodation to the public but refuses to offer a bed for a gay couple or a Christian baker who refuses to make a cake for a same-sex wedding isn't really a Christian.
And you have to accept that some of your male customers want a bikini wax because they get sexual gratification from having their penis handled by a young woman, possibly a teenager? Seriously?
No you don't. You're offering a bikini wax, not sexual services. The client also has a duty not to take liberties with any service offered.
And you have to accept that some of your male customers want a bikini wax because they get sexual gratification from having their penis handled by a young woman, possibly a teenager? Seriously?
That's true of massage. In practice, I think guys like that are rare, and of course, you can stop the treatment. Guys who want wank massage usually find someone else.
I cannot for the life of me see how a male-sexed person choosing to live as a woman or a female-sexed person choosing to live as a man has any impact on my life or the life of anyone else, at all other than their immediate friends and relatives.
I don't agree with your use of "choosing" which has connotations of a totally voluntary, almost whimsical, choice. It's a choice made because those, deep down, believe themselves to be of the gender other than that usually associated with their sex (using sex as the physical).
If gender was simply something that people "associate" with a sex, like your ideology preaches, then there would be no need to adjust anatomical traits to that of the opposite sex, with hormone treatment or surgery. If the body is healthy, it needs no treatment.
There are a lot of things that people also do in response to beliefs they have "deep down", but that doesn´t mean it´s not a choice. Even if it´s a choice motivated by a belief system. Let´s imagine in one case, a person feels like being female, but decides to accept his male body and appearence out of conservative religious beliefs, while other person with the same feelings decides to accept her female mind and change her body to match. Both persons have made decisions compelled by their beliefs. One has changed her body in an irreversible way. Both are probably going to deal with mental issues for the rest of their lives.
I'm not sure why you've used scare quotes. Or why you are talking about cakes. A cake is a cake whether it is for a gay couple or not. As is a bed.
But anyway, thanks for illustrating exactly why some people have worries over what some aspects of gender identity ideology may lead to.
They're not 'scare quotes'. They indicate that any self-professing Christian who offers accommodation to the public but refuses to offer a bed for a gay couple or a Christian baker who refuses to make a cake for a same-sex wedding isn't really a Christian.
Oh very good, you're able to know the mind of God now.
They're not 'scare quotes'. They indicate that any self-professing Christian who offers accommodation to the public but refuses to offer a bed for a gay couple or a Christian baker who refuses to make a cake for a same-sex wedding isn't really a Christian.
Oh very good, you're able to know the mind of God now.[/quote]
I'm an atheist. This is the situation in the UK "The Christian owners of a guesthouse who were ordered to pay damages for turning away a gay couple have lost their UK Supreme Court fight." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-25119158
Do you think there are a large number of people who find having the hair ripped out of their genitals with wax sexually arousing ? I mean seriously, of all the activities you could identify ...
Also self identified men also have back, sack and crack waxes - who do you imagine are doing these ?
I'm an atheist. This is the situation in the UK "The Christian owners of a guesthouse who were ordered to pay damages for turning away a gay couple have lost their UK Supreme Court fight."
I know the case. If you're an atheist I'm not sure what you think a Christian is, but I don't know how you can pronounce on whether someone is one or not. Saying they are not a Christian is different to saying that they have acted in an un-Christian way.
Do you think there are a large number of people who find having the hair ripped out of their genitals with wax sexually arousing ? I mean seriously, of all the activities you could identify ...
Also self identified men also have back, sack and crack waxes - who do you imagine are doing these ?
People who have offered the service to do so. And that's precisely the point - it is easily possible for the person to get the wax they want, but they have chosen to target people offering the service just to women.
And you have to accept that some of your male customers want a bikini wax because they get sexual gratification from having their penis handled by a young woman, possibly a teenager? Seriously?
No you don't. You're offering a bikini wax, not sexual services. The client also has a duty not to take liberties with any service offered.
I would think that any clinic offering waxes has trained its staff, and has prepared for both sexes, and knows how to deal with wankers. This is true of most massage practitioners. If they don't want male clients, I think that is legally OK in the UK. With massage, most people seem to get the difference between massage and wanking. Obviously, in mixed sex clinics, trans people are not an issue, don't know about single sex.
Is there much point in continuing to discuss trans denial, because ISTM that the condition is proven to the satisfaction of most reasonable people? The more pertinent questions are how to respond to it in a just, compassionate and rational manner, taking into account the need to recognise the uncertainty of its definition and causes, and problems of acceptance (social, administrative and legal), and the need to build greater sympathy amongst the public as a whole.
I really do struggle with the tone and implications here. Unless I've seriously misread this, you appear to be saying that we as a a society have to accommodate those who deny that trans is a thing and the logical conclusion is that this "accommodation" will have some impact on the lives of those who are trans.
That's like society accommodating racists by taking measures that impact on the lives of black people.
Are women who have been raped or abused by men transphobic to want a space where there are no male people (in the biological sense), because they are triggered by who the perceive to be men when they think they are in a safe space? Are you comparing them to racists? Is it right that the Vancouver Rape Relief centre is having its funding withdrawn because it only accommodates people who are born women?
Still in Canada, a particularly odious individual is suing 16 people/companies because they refused to carry out a 'bikini wax' on them, when they have a penis. (And yes, the court is taking it seriously). Of course there are going to be bad apples in any group, so it is not the individual that is the problem, but how society and government react to such individuals. And at the moment the court there is deciding whether they should force people to have to touch penises when they don't want to, or face being sued.
Secondly - you do all know that there are companies giving full manzilian waxes - man Brazilians? That's a range of companies that offer full genital waxing services to men - this service comes under different names, including back, sack and crack (BSC) waxings - see here for FAQ. Just put it into any search engine and you'll find your local availability.
I would think that any clinic offering waxes has trained its staff, and has prepared for both sexes, and knows how to deal with wankers. This is true of most massage practitioners. If they don't want male clients, I think that is legally OK in the UK. With massage, most people seem to get the difference between massage and wanking. Obviously, in mixed sex clinics, trans people are not an issue, don't know about single sex.
Many beauty parlour places (in the UK at least) don't offer any waxing services to men. Of those that do it is typically only back/chest. I've had my back done, and whenever I've rung up they've actually made a point to say that they don't do "crack and sack" (which probably tells you something about the requests they get). If you want to get such a wax then you normally need to go to someone who specialises in male waxing, of which there are plenty around.
Do you think there are a large number of people who find having the hair ripped out of their genitals with wax sexually arousing ? I mean seriously, of all the activities you could identify ...
Also self identified men also have back, sack and crack waxes - who do you imagine are doing these ?
I think back, sack and crack waxes tend to be offered by women working in larger salons. They're not often offered by lone beauticians, working from home, who might offer bikini waxing.
Secondly - you do all know that there are companies giving full manzilian waxes - man Brazilians? That's a range of companies that offer full genital waxing services to men - this service comes under different names, including back, sack and crack (BSC) waxings - see here for FAQ. Just put it into any search engine and you'll find your local availability.
I don't want to link to the canadian waxing person. If you want you can search for it. The Vancouver Rape Relief centre was in the news if you care to look too.
And yes, I know there are plenty of places that offer intimate waxing for men. Not sure what your point is.
Do you think there are a large number of people who find having the hair ripped out of their genitals with wax sexually arousing ? I mean seriously, of all the activities you could identify ...
Also self identified men also have back, sack and crack waxes - who do you imagine are doing these ?
People who have offered the service to do so. And that's precisely the point - it is easily possible for the person to get the wax they want, but they have chosen to target people offering the service just to women.
I worked as a therapist for 30 years, ditto my wife, and it is understood that you don't have to accept a particular client, and you don't have to give a reason. Same is true of massage, I think, seems odd that giving a wax is compulsory for the practitioner.
It matters a hell of a lot TO ME that every person has the right to identify as man or woman regardless of their biological sex.
OK, but based on what? Are you advocating for just taking people's word for it regardless of any other factors?
Yes. If you say you're a Christian, I'll take your word for it. If you say you're a liberal, I'll take your word for it. I may decide to disagree with your opinion, if your behaviour suggests otherwise.
This opens up a whole other can of worms. What if, for example, I say I'm a black person? Would you support my right to that self-identification? What about my right to apply for assistance through programmes designed to help minorities?
Or are you going to deny that self-identification merely because of the lack of melanin in my skin? But surely that's just as meaningless a physical characteristic as a penis or vagina?
My point on Jonathan / Jessica Yaniv is that I am not sure that transgender is the problem there. He sounds as if he is a predatory male abusing the Canadian self-ID transgender system. I am not sure that a predatory man abusing various legal loopholes and acting as a vexatious litigant should be used as a case to denigrate all transgender people.
What if, for example, I say I'm a black person? Would you support my right to that self-identification? What about my right to apply for assistance through programmes designed to help minorities?
I seem to recall mentioning Rachel Dolezal last time this subject came around. As an illustration that all this is more complicated than it might at first appear.
A lot of uninformed people think being transgender is a choice (I'm not saying I do!!!).
The usual, understandable response to Dolezal from minorities, people of colour first and foremost, is to say "she could step out of her role any time she wanted", but I'm far from sure she would say so and indeed I'm not sure she would genuinely feel that way.
Is her word to be taken less seriously than anybody else's, and if so, why?
My point on Jonathan / Jessica Yaniv is that I am not sure that transgender is the problem there. He sounds as if he is a predatory male abusing the Canadian self-ID transgender system. I am not sure that a predatory man abusing various legal loopholes and acting as a vexatious litigant should be used as a case to denigrate all transgender people.
Which if you read the post where I brought it up is what I said. It is the system that is the problem not trans people in general, or even the individual in question (awful though they appear to be).
I admit to being surprised that it is even remotely up for debate that people shouldn't have to touch penises, even if they offer intimate services for women, but I guess I've learnt something new today.
My point on Jonathan / Jessica Yaniv is that I am not sure that transgender is the problem there. He sounds as if he is a predatory male abusing the Canadian self-ID transgender system. I am not sure that a predatory man abusing various legal loopholes and acting as a vexatious litigant should be used as a case to denigrate all transgender people.
Which if you read the post where I brought it up is what I said. It is the system that is the problem not trans people in general, or even the individual in question (awful though they appear to be).
I admit to being surprised that it is even remotely up for debate that people shouldn't have to touch penises, even if they offer intimate services for women, but I guess I've learnt something new today.
Really ? Have you heard of nursing, support work, search procedures ? I could go on. Basically, it depends if it is part of your job.
(Also, speaking as an ex care worker who got people washed and dressed in the morning - bedbathing and fitting continence aids where required - it rapidly becomes entirely routine and unmemorable.)
My point on Jonathan / Jessica Yaniv is that I am not sure that transgender is the problem there. He sounds as if he is a predatory male abusing the Canadian self-ID transgender system. I am not sure that a predatory man abusing various legal loopholes and acting as a vexatious litigant should be used as a case to denigrate all transgender people.
Which if you read the post where I brought it up is what I said. It is the system that is the problem not trans people in general, or even the individual in question (awful though they appear to be).
I admit to being surprised that it is even remotely up for debate that people shouldn't have to touch penises, even if they offer intimate services for women, but I guess I've learnt something new today.
Really ? Have you heard of nursing, support work, search procedures ? I could go on. Basically, it depends if it is part of your job.
If you do female waxing it isn't part of your job to wax dicks.
If their job is only to work with certain genitalia then it's not a service for women but a service for people with those genitalia and they'd presumably be happy to wax trans man who still had those genitalia. Sounds like it's a wording issue as when people want to invite parents of little children and instead invite moms or when people wish to offer pregnancy and gynecological services and instead call them women's health services. The person/people can double down on their error or could just correct the mistake and call it what they actually mean.
Have a look at pretty much any beauty parlour and the services they offer. They are split between men and women. These are not taboo words. And saying that it is a 'mistake' to use such words is ludicrous.
Have a look at pretty much any beauty parlour and the services they offer. They are split between men and women. These are not taboo words. And saying that it is a 'mistake' to use such words is ludicrous.
But aren't you saying that transgender doesn't exist, since women can't have dicks?
Have a look at pretty much any beauty parlour and the services they offer. They are split between men and women. These are not taboo words. And saying that it is a 'mistake' to use such words is ludicrous.
But aren't you saying that transgender doesn't exist, since women can't have dicks?
Have a look at pretty much any beauty parlour and the services they offer. They are split between men and women. These are not taboo words. And saying that it is a 'mistake' to use such words is ludicrous.
But aren't you saying that transgender doesn't exist, since women can't have dicks?
What does that even mean? Seriously.
It just says that you can't have a woman with a penis, therefore transgender or a trans woman, is a delusion, an error.
I think that this is on the right thread - hard to be precise.
I don't agree with much of what NP has posted on this topic, particularly recently. One question raised by him early on does seem to warrant more discussion and that is the timing of the trans procedure. He suggests that his relation went to see a doctor and then all was started immediately.
Those with long memories will recall a thread a decade or more ago from poster Zwingli. He raised an instance in Victoria of the great anguish expressed by a transwoman who later decided that it was in fact a mistake and wish.ed a reversal. Zwingli fulminated against the doctors who had carried out the procedures without question. Several of us drew his attention to the requirements in all the states that the procedure was to be staged, with one of the stages being that the trans person having to live as a person of the gender which they believed to be the correct one for a period of 12 months.
What comments do posters have of this aspect? Certainly what NP posits could not happen here. Obviously a person transitioning should be given substantial support and counselling throughout the procedure and that is in fact done.
I suspect that there are different things being conflated here. Transition refers to several different things:
social transition - where the transperson changes their name and pronouns and starts dressing in their preferred gender;
medical transition - where the transperson starts taking the hormones that will change their body towards the gender that matches their identity;
surgical transition - surgery to align the transperson's body to the gender that matches their identity.
In the UK, social transition often happens while someone is on a waiting list to see the Gender Identity Development Service with the long waiting lists for all psychological support here. And that would be part of the staged procedure here too.
Some stages of surgical intervention may or may not be completed as, for example, the surgical creation of a penis for a transman may not be entirely successful, so some transmen stop having surgery after the double mastectomy and full hysterectomy. A transwoman may not have enough skin left to create a vagina and urethra after hormonal treatment, and the hormones may create large enough breasts without breast augmentation. There's more on surgical transition here
Are women who have been raped or abused by men transphobic to want a space where there are no male people (in the biological sense), because they are triggered by who the perceive to be men when they think they are in a safe space? Are you comparing them to racists? Is it right that the Vancouver Rape Relief centre is having its funding withdrawn because it only accommodates people who are born women?
There are trans women who say they are men. Do they not "exist" to you?
No. That's a contradiction in terms. A trans woman is by definition a person who was assigned the sex "M" at birth, but identifies as a woman. She says she's a woman. You are saying there are people who say they are women who say they are men. Huh?
There are trans women who say they are men. Do they not "exist" to you?
No. That's a contradiction in terms. A trans woman is by definition a person who was assigned the sex "M" at birth, but identifies as a woman. She says she's a woman. You are saying there are people who say they are women who say they are men. Huh?
Yes. There are trans people who identify as women but don't think they can change sex, only their appearance. Nice to know you are saying they don't "exist", as Quetzacoatl would say.
Are women who have been raped or abused by men transphobic to want a space where there are no male people (in the biological sense), because they are triggered by who the perceive to be men when they think they are in a safe space? Are you comparing them to racists? Is it right that the Vancouver Rape Relief centre is having its funding withdrawn because it only accommodates people who are born women?
There's a lot of information out on the interwebz that's negative about transgender. Something like the linking of Jonathan/Jessica Yaniv story to transwomen seems to be a mischievous way to cast a bad light on any transpeople. As does writing an article about a rape centre funding in such a way to suggest that all the funding has been lost rather than a minor funding stream. Personally I have found it worthwhile checking stories about transgender to see if they have been slanted in any way before passing them on.
It was in response to a specific question about what people were worried about. I answered the question 🤷♂️ I was very clear that JY is not representative of trans people. But please, keep on with the insinuations.
Are there trans women who are content (if that's the right word) to retain their male genitalia and reproduce?
I don't know about trans women, but there has been at least one case of a trans man who chose to retain a vagina and womb, got pregnant, and gave birth to the child.
I have to admit that this is something I just do not understand. I can understand believing/feeling one is truly a man, and thus choosing to live as a man thereafter. But surely part of that belief/feeling/decision has to include the fact that being pregnant is an inherently female thing, and therefore not something that you, as a man, can do?
It comes back to the whole "what does it actually mean to be a woman/man" thing I've been asking about. If there are no external traits, behaviours or characteristics - up to and including pregnancy - that are inherently male or female then why does it matter to people which one they are? What makes the difference to them? What are they looking for?
It comes back to the whole "what does it actually mean to be a woman/man" thing I've been asking about. If there are no external traits, behaviours or characteristics - up to and including pregnancy - that are inherently male or female then why does it matter to people which one they are? What makes the difference to them? What are they looking for?
It's a circular logic of a woman/man being anyone who identifies as a woman/man.
And though I personally don't have a concept of innate gender, I'm happy to take people's word for it that they do. What I object to isn't that people are interpreting words their own way, but the insistence that everyone else also interprets them in the same way.
I have to admit that this is something I just do not understand. I can understand believing/feeling one is truly a man, and thus choosing to live as a man thereafter. But surely part of that belief/feeling/decision has to include the fact that being pregnant is an inherently female thing, and therefore not something that you, as a man, can do?
It comes back to the whole "what does it actually mean to be a woman/man" thing I've been asking about. If there are no external traits, behaviours or characteristics - up to and including pregnancy - that are inherently male or female then why does it matter to people which one they are? What makes the difference to them? What are they looking for?
I don't know why it matters to them. Hell, any motivation I don't share is usually a complete mystery to me. But equally, I'm pretty sure that some of my motivations seem odd to those who don't share them.
So, regardless of whether I understand what motivates someone to do or want something I will support their right to do or obtain that something provided it does not negatively impact on any other person's pursuit of their motivations.
It matters a hell of a lot TO ME that every person has the right to identify as man or woman regardless of their biological sex.
OK, but based on what? Are you advocating for just taking people's word for it regardless of any other factors?
Yes. If you say you're a Christian, I'll take your word for it. If you say you're a liberal, I'll take your word for it. I may decide to disagree with your opinion, if your behaviour suggests otherwise.
This opens up a whole other can of worms. What if, for example, I say I'm a black person? Would you support my right to that self-identification? What about my right to apply for assistance through programmes designed to help minorities?
Or are you going to deny that self-identification merely because of the lack of melanin in my skin? But surely that's just as meaningless a physical characteristic as a penis or vagina?
From a social viewpoint, if someone says they are 'X' I will accept their word for it until or unless their subsequent behaviour indicates otherwise. If someone is claiming 'X' in order to obtain money or services only available to those who are 'X' then of course I would expect the person or organisation offering money or services to check that person's claim.
Colin Smith: If someone is claiming 'X' in order to obtain money or services only available to those who are 'X' then of course I would expect the person or organisation offering money or services to check that person's claim.
So, presumably, there needs to be a socially agreed definition as to what constitutes a male or female.
Colin Smith: If someone is claiming 'X' in order to obtain money or services only available to those who are 'X' then of course I would expect the person or organisation offering money or services to check that person's claim.
So, presumably, there needs to be a socially agreed definition as to what constitutes a male or female.
The definition for male and female is biological, not social, so this would apply only in situations where a person's biological sex is objectively relevant to any money or services that might be offered. For example, I wouldn't expect a gynaecologist to offer treatment to males and I wouldn't expect females to be screened for testicular cancer.
You have to distinguish objective and subjective descriptions. Sex is often described externally, e.g., you have a penis, but gender identity is by definition subjective. I think this is one of the crunch points, as some people want to define it externally, which is a contradiction. I might be able to cite your penis, but I don't have access to your personal identity, which might not be male.
ColinSmith: The definition for male and female is biological, not social,
What I meant by 'social' was a definition of sex that was independent of the opinion of the person concerned: a generally accepted definition against which a claim can be tested. Thus, for example, given your remark: "I would expect the person or organisation offering money or services to check that person's claim," would apply to a trans seeking a move from a male to female prison.
ColinSmith: The definition for male and female is biological, not social,
What I meant by 'social' was a definition of sex that was independent of the opinion of the person concerned: a generally accepted definition against which a claim can be tested. Thus, for example, given your remark: "I would expect the person or organisation offering money or services to check that person's claim," would apply to a trans seeking a move from a male to female prison.
You are confusing (deliberately?) sex with gender.
Re the prison transfer, I think it would be reasonable to ascertain the individual's motivation to ensure there was no ill-intent. However, I think the number of occasions that situation arises are vanishingly small.
The general position that people should be free to express whatever gender they identify as, as opposed to being socially obliged to identify only as their biological sex, is not threatened by those rare and unusual situations where there is legitimate concern that an individual might be masquerading as one or other gender for nefarious purposes.
Comments
They're not 'scare quotes'. They indicate that any self-professing Christian who offers accommodation to the public but refuses to offer a bed for a gay couple or a Christian baker who refuses to make a cake for a same-sex wedding isn't really a Christian.
No you don't. You're offering a bikini wax, not sexual services. The client also has a duty not to take liberties with any service offered.
For avoidance of doubt, the request was for a full wax of the genital area.
That's true of massage. In practice, I think guys like that are rare, and of course, you can stop the treatment. Guys who want wank massage usually find someone else.
If gender was simply something that people "associate" with a sex, like your ideology preaches, then there would be no need to adjust anatomical traits to that of the opposite sex, with hormone treatment or surgery. If the body is healthy, it needs no treatment.
There are a lot of things that people also do in response to beliefs they have "deep down", but that doesn´t mean it´s not a choice. Even if it´s a choice motivated by a belief system. Let´s imagine in one case, a person feels like being female, but decides to accept his male body and appearence out of conservative religious beliefs, while other person with the same feelings decides to accept her female mind and change her body to match. Both persons have made decisions compelled by their beliefs. One has changed her body in an irreversible way. Both are probably going to deal with mental issues for the rest of their lives.
Oh very good, you're able to know the mind of God now.
Oh very good, you're able to know the mind of God now.[/quote]
I'm an atheist. This is the situation in the UK "The Christian owners of a guesthouse who were ordered to pay damages for turning away a gay couple have lost their UK Supreme Court fight." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-25119158
Also self identified men also have back, sack and crack waxes - who do you imagine are doing these ?
I know the case. If you're an atheist I'm not sure what you think a Christian is, but I don't know how you can pronounce on whether someone is one or not. Saying they are not a Christian is different to saying that they have acted in an un-Christian way.
People who have offered the service to do so. And that's precisely the point - it is easily possible for the person to get the wax they want, but they have chosen to target people offering the service just to women.
I would think that any clinic offering waxes has trained its staff, and has prepared for both sexes, and knows how to deal with wankers. This is true of most massage practitioners. If they don't want male clients, I think that is legally OK in the UK. With massage, most people seem to get the difference between massage and wanking. Obviously, in mixed sex clinics, trans people are not an issue, don't know about single sex.
@quantpole can you give citations to this?
Secondly - you do all know that there are companies giving full manzilian waxes - man Brazilians? That's a range of companies that offer full genital waxing services to men - this service comes under different names, including back, sack and crack (BSC) waxings - see here for FAQ. Just put it into any search engine and you'll find your local availability.
Many beauty parlour places (in the UK at least) don't offer any waxing services to men. Of those that do it is typically only back/chest. I've had my back done, and whenever I've rung up they've actually made a point to say that they don't do "crack and sack" (which probably tells you something about the requests they get). If you want to get such a wax then you normally need to go to someone who specialises in male waxing, of which there are plenty around.
I think back, sack and crack waxes tend to be offered by women working in larger salons. They're not often offered by lone beauticians, working from home, who might offer bikini waxing.
I don't want to link to the canadian waxing person. If you want you can search for it. The Vancouver Rape Relief centre was in the news if you care to look too.
And yes, I know there are plenty of places that offer intimate waxing for men. Not sure what your point is.
I worked as a therapist for 30 years, ditto my wife, and it is understood that you don't have to accept a particular client, and you don't have to give a reason. Same is true of massage, I think, seems odd that giving a wax is compulsory for the practitioner.
This opens up a whole other can of worms. What if, for example, I say I'm a black person? Would you support my right to that self-identification? What about my right to apply for assistance through programmes designed to help minorities?
Or are you going to deny that self-identification merely because of the lack of melanin in my skin? But surely that's just as meaningless a physical characteristic as a penis or vagina?
I seem to recall mentioning Rachel Dolezal last time this subject came around. As an illustration that all this is more complicated than it might at first appear.
The usual, understandable response to Dolezal from minorities, people of colour first and foremost, is to say "she could step out of her role any time she wanted", but I'm far from sure she would say so and indeed I'm not sure she would genuinely feel that way.
Is her word to be taken less seriously than anybody else's, and if so, why?
Which if you read the post where I brought it up is what I said. It is the system that is the problem not trans people in general, or even the individual in question (awful though they appear to be).
I admit to being surprised that it is even remotely up for debate that people shouldn't have to touch penises, even if they offer intimate services for women, but I guess I've learnt something new today.
How do you know that?
Such as?
Really ? Have you heard of nursing, support work, search procedures ? I could go on. Basically, it depends if it is part of your job.
(Also, speaking as an ex care worker who got people washed and dressed in the morning - bedbathing and fitting continence aids where required - it rapidly becomes entirely routine and unmemorable.)
If you do female waxing it isn't part of your job to wax dicks.
Perfect Pudenda
Give your vulva some va va voom
But aren't you saying that transgender doesn't exist, since women can't have dicks?
What does that even mean? Seriously.
It just says that you can't have a woman with a penis, therefore transgender or a trans woman, is a delusion, an error.
I suspect that there are different things being conflated here. Transition refers to several different things:
In the UK, social transition often happens while someone is on a waiting list to see the Gender Identity Development Service with the long waiting lists for all psychological support here. And that would be part of the staged procedure here too.
Some stages of surgical intervention may or may not be completed as, for example, the surgical creation of a penis for a transman may not be entirely successful, so some transmen stop having surgery after the double mastectomy and full hysterectomy. A transwoman may not have enough skin left to create a vagina and urethra after hormonal treatment, and the hormones may create large enough breasts without breast augmentation. There's more on surgical transition here
Still none the wiser sorry. I don't understand the steps of logic you are taking.
There are trans women who say they are men. Do they not "exist" to you?
You do know that the Vancouver Rape Relief have only lost one stream of funding and not their main funding stream? If you read the National Post, rather than the Daily Telegraph, you'd find that the impression given that the city funding was the only funding is misleading.
No. That's a contradiction in terms. A trans woman is by definition a person who was assigned the sex "M" at birth, but identifies as a woman. She says she's a woman. You are saying there are people who say they are women who say they are men. Huh?
Yes. There are trans people who identify as women but don't think they can change sex, only their appearance. Nice to know you are saying they don't "exist", as Quetzacoatl would say.
Yes I did. So what? Does that somehow make it ok? (And most of their funding is still from government, which will probably be targeted too.)
I don't know about trans women, but there has been at least one case of a trans man who chose to retain a vagina and womb, got pregnant, and gave birth to the child.
Link
I have to admit that this is something I just do not understand. I can understand believing/feeling one is truly a man, and thus choosing to live as a man thereafter. But surely part of that belief/feeling/decision has to include the fact that being pregnant is an inherently female thing, and therefore not something that you, as a man, can do?
It comes back to the whole "what does it actually mean to be a woman/man" thing I've been asking about. If there are no external traits, behaviours or characteristics - up to and including pregnancy - that are inherently male or female then why does it matter to people which one they are? What makes the difference to them? What are they looking for?
Mostly the information I found was about transmen conceiving and carrying babies rather than transwomen fertilising women.
It's a circular logic of a woman/man being anyone who identifies as a woman/man.
And though I personally don't have a concept of innate gender, I'm happy to take people's word for it that they do. What I object to isn't that people are interpreting words their own way, but the insistence that everyone else also interprets them in the same way.
I don't know why it matters to them. Hell, any motivation I don't share is usually a complete mystery to me. But equally, I'm pretty sure that some of my motivations seem odd to those who don't share them.
So, regardless of whether I understand what motivates someone to do or want something I will support their right to do or obtain that something provided it does not negatively impact on any other person's pursuit of their motivations.
From a social viewpoint, if someone says they are 'X' I will accept their word for it until or unless their subsequent behaviour indicates otherwise. If someone is claiming 'X' in order to obtain money or services only available to those who are 'X' then of course I would expect the person or organisation offering money or services to check that person's claim.
So, presumably, there needs to be a socially agreed definition as to what constitutes a male or female.
The definition for male and female is biological, not social, so this would apply only in situations where a person's biological sex is objectively relevant to any money or services that might be offered. For example, I wouldn't expect a gynaecologist to offer treatment to males and I wouldn't expect females to be screened for testicular cancer.
What I meant by 'social' was a definition of sex that was independent of the opinion of the person concerned: a generally accepted definition against which a claim can be tested. Thus, for example, given your remark: "I would expect the person or organisation offering money or services to check that person's claim," would apply to a trans seeking a move from a male to female prison.
You are confusing (deliberately?) sex with gender.
Re the prison transfer, I think it would be reasonable to ascertain the individual's motivation to ensure there was no ill-intent. However, I think the number of occasions that situation arises are vanishingly small.
The general position that people should be free to express whatever gender they identify as, as opposed to being socially obliged to identify only as their biological sex, is not threatened by those rare and unusual situations where there is legitimate concern that an individual might be masquerading as one or other gender for nefarious purposes.