|
Post by wordweaver3 on Jun 5, 2015 3:13:10 GMT
Some tension between feminism and homosexuality as well. www.breitbart.com/london/2015/05/28/feminist-germaine-greer-attacks-elton-john-and-david-furnish-for-deconstructing-motherhood/She does have a point. The woman who gave birth to the child is the actual mother, David is at best the surrogate. Or possibly the father, depending on which one of them donated the genetic material. But that's another topic. The thing about Jenner is that it's not enough that she believes that she is a woman, she needs acceptance from everyone else that she is a woman. Not just a woman, but a pretty woman. I happen to know transvestites, as far as they're concerned they're women regardless of what everyone else may think. (and if I may be blunt, they ain't foolin' anyone anyway) They aren't doing it for narcissistic reasons anyway, they're doing it because it makes them comfortable. As far as I'm concerned, if it works for them I ain't gonna argue with them. What's more they aren't asking me to, what I think is irrelevant. Jenner is going to great lengths to prove something to everyone that she only need prove to herself. It's not so much courage as it is Vanity (Fair).
|
|
|
Post by Canuovea on Jun 6, 2015 18:52:49 GMT
Certain types of feminism. Some might argue that being an "adoptive mother" is pretty much the same thing, at least from the sort of "family culture" perspective. There is a reason that adopted children often call their adopted parents by "mother and father" rather than "Guardians". Parenthood is an interesting concept.
After all, there is the literal "you are the sperm donor/baby carrier" and then there is the "raising the child and passing on or forming beliefs and personality." And, as Greer notes, there is also the "egg donor" role now. Boo fucking hoo. I don't see a problem with any of that.
Maybe because my father's "father" was a step-father and I still have that man's last name rather than one with a genetic connection. It seems to me that the most important part of parenthood is the contributions they actually make to the development of the child's personality and beliefs.
But I guess it comes down to definitions. Goodness knows, some feminists welcome the deconstructions of "motherhood" or "parenthood".
As for Jenner, it seems to me that what she is doing is going to bring transgender issues into the public sphere, and force some kind of public acknowledgement. I think this is positive because goodness knows that trans people often face considerable pressure and mental stress put upon them by society because they are trans. So hell, I don't care if she is just doing it for vanity.
Being able to be open about who you are is healthy. It isn't like they're asking you to have sex with them (or even think they're pretty), but rather to treat them just like any other person and afford them the courtesy that comes with it. You know, rather than saying they're abominations or calling them "it" when they clearly identify as he or she (like in the comments of that article I linked to).
|
|
|
Post by wordweaver3 on Jun 6, 2015 22:06:02 GMT
That's not true. What if who you are is horrifying? We could say Jeffery Dahmer was open about who he was. Certainly Ted Bundy was. If you're a psychopath, pedophile, zoophiliac, cannibal, terrorist, or some other monstrosity, we as a society would prefer it if you would be uncomfortable enough with that to keep it from the rest of us. To hide it deep down inside. Of course, I'm taking it to the extreme... or am I? If we keep moving the bar of what is socially acceptable eventually we run out of things that are unacceptable. Sure, we're a long way away from there, but where will we draw the line? What's to say that future generations will have any respect for where we decide the line is anyway? Our parent's generation treated homosexuals and transsexuals as misfits. We are moving to make these groups acceptable, if not normal. Will our children or our children's children have a more enlightened attitude toward pedophilia? After all, it's not our place to tell a child who they can and can't have sex with. Children are people too, they have rights, and they have the right to choose their sexuality. That's crazy, isn't it? Isn't it? But we tolerate a great deal of sexualization of children. Sure we get all up in arms if someone abuses them in our own society, but we often look the other way when it happens somewhere else far away. We can't judge their culture or their society. At least it's easier not to. I mean, what can we do anyway? Go to war over it? No. War is only something we do for noble reasons like oil or land or revenge.
|
|
|
Post by StyxD on Jun 6, 2015 23:14:53 GMT
Haha, Word, please.
Can you at least try harder than this "today homosexuals, tomorrow pedophilia and zoophilia!" slippery slope bullshit rightists' been saying over and over for the past 20 years?
I mean, at this point it's pretty unlikely to convince anyone not already convinced, since you know, they're so sick of hearing it.
Also, for fuck's sake, Breitbert, the site of one of the Gamergate's (and manosphere's) chief shitlords.
Could you please stick to Fox News if you need some obviously biased news source to quote?
|
|
|
Post by wordweaver3 on Jun 6, 2015 23:43:50 GMT
First off, we have conversations here not flame wars.
Second off, if you have a counter point please post them. Laughing at my points isn't an argument.
Thirdly: Hi! I'm Wordweaver! I like to play the devil's advocate. Have we met before?
|
|
|
Post by Canuovea on Jun 6, 2015 23:58:26 GMT
I'll see what I can do in response to this.
1) First off, you didn't prove that being themselves is not healthy for them. Pedophiles, etc, I mean. It may well have a validating healthy effect to that individual. The problem is that it isn't healthy for their victims. I'm generally for "do what you like so long as you don't infringe on other's rights/health." And boy oh boy, do pedophiles infringe on the rights and health of others. What is more, it is widely accepted that children cannot give consent. Zoophiliacs face a similar problem in that the animals they abuse cannot give consent.
2) The main difference between Trans or homosexual people and pedophiles is that they are not harming others by being who they are. It is victimless. As such, I see no moral basis for forcing them into seclusion or into denying themselves. In fact, forcing them to do that will cause them harm. This also is why there should not be any legal blocks in the way of their identity. It isn't the law's concern.
3) So is there any valid reason to deny transsexuals acceptance? I cannot see one. Certainly not on a logical moral level. Now, are you entitled to react by following some kind of gut instinct that tells you "this is unfamiliar and therefore bad! EWWWW!" Yes, of course you are entitled to act that way. After all, you do not have a right to not be offended. But there is no harm in accepting them, in fact it is more likely to validate them and make them feel good. Since I see them as people I want them to be happy, and as such I feel a moral obligation to be kind and accepting of them.
As for moral line drawing, generally that seems to be "consent." Children cannot consent, animals cannot consent... and so forth. Now we can discuss the philosophical reasons for why children cannot consent if you like, but I think we both know the reasons and I don't see those changing any time soon.
Sexualization of children: Yeah, I deem that potentially harmful and problematic on the part of those doing the sexualization. I think that is a problem with society in general, though, and I think you might be edging onto feminism's turf by bringing it up. I don't see how it really ties into transgender acceptance.
And other cultures... yeah, that is always a tough call.
As StyxD noted, it is a slippery slope fallacy to say that transgender therefore pedophilia... but I hope I've made clear why there is a dividing line and the fallacy is not correct (as I see it).
|
|
|
Post by StyxD on Jun 7, 2015 6:52:04 GMT
Apologies, Wordweaver. I was horribly pissed (for unrelated reasons) when I got to browse this forum. I didn't mean to post here at all, but "therefore pedophilia" was too much for me at the time.
You want counterpoints? Fine.
As per Canouvea, the line here is harm done to others. It's pretty clear cut.
Nothing. Our great-grandparents thought homosexuality is a grave crime against nature, but it did not stop us from accepting it. Medieval people from Spain and France dutifully oppressed Cagots, but it did not stop their descendants from forgetting who they were and why they were oppressed. Who's to say that in hundred years there's not going to be pogroms against certain peoples in the West? Is it going to be a direct fault of any one of our decisions?
There's no way to ensure that future generations will or will not do something. It's kind of arrogant to think it is, and pointless to worry.
Who exactly is "we" here? I'm pretty sure it's not feminists.
Actually, the "it's only natural for men to be attracted to pubescent girls" is more of the manosphere's shtick. You know, the same people complaining that Jenner is so icky! Well, I for one am sure they'd rather ogle pictures of some teenagers than her.
And is this the "feminists should be fighting for rights of the really oppressed people abroad!" argument, almost as old as the slippery slope one?
If it is, then I'd suggest you stop shopping for food. Not while there are really starving people in Africa!
And here I really can't decide if the sarcasm means you think that we indeed should go to war over it, so I hold off.
|
|
|
Post by wordweaver3 on Jun 7, 2015 21:22:15 GMT
That's better. The problem with this forum is that we all tend to agree for the most part. It makes for horrifyingly dull conversation.
I was doing a really poor job of was steering the conversation, I was trying to steer it into bringing up transspeciesism (people who believe they have the soul of an animal or were supposed to be an animal) and transracialism (people who believe they were born of the wrong race). Yes, these are things, they just don't get much cover. Would we (and by "we" I mean us as a society) have the same openness for people who wear blackface or use tape to slant their eyes in much the same manner as transsexuals wear clothing, wigs and sometimes go as far as surgery to become the opposite sex? Or would we be okay with someone who believes he's a dog being taken out for a walk around the neighborhood so he can "do his business"? Sure, this is also a slippery slope argument, but the slope is sometimes slippery. What keeps these people from seeking the same acceptance that everyone else wants?
I mean, everyone made fun of Michal Jackson for trying to become white.
As far as what harm transsexuals do the only real thing I can come up with is public restrooms, locker rooms and showers. Do they use the men's or women's? There have been issues about this in high schools already.
(Sorry, I don't have a lot of time for counter points, I gotta go to work)
|
|
|
Post by Horsie on Jun 7, 2015 22:12:28 GMT
I suppose it's not enough of an argument for me to say that if someone thinks they should be a different race it's probably just cultural appropriation taken to an extreme, and people who honestly believe in their heart of hearts that they are animals are just being ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by Harkovast on Jun 7, 2015 23:01:33 GMT
Yeah but when you start saying slippery slopes, people used to say that in the past.
Women voting? Black and whites marrying? What's next? Where will it end?
Ironically, a lot of our ideas of race actually ARE social constructs not genetic traits, so someone saying they are transracial wouldn't make as much sense.
And let transexuals use what ever bathroom they want. If someone identifies as a woman they can use the women's toilets and vice versa. I don't see a problem.
|
|
|
Post by Canuovea on Jun 8, 2015 1:29:00 GMT
Some people have tried to make themselves look like another race because they preferred it.
I find that a bit insensitive, maybe, but ultimately harmless.
Also, Michael Jackson had a skin disease that removed the pigment from his skin in splotches. Rather than have splotched skin, he decided to just go all the way with it. I see the logic. But you're right, people were insensitive about it.
Says Renard. On the forum of a furry comic. Ironic.
Again, it doesn't really bother me so long as they don't harm anyone.
|
|
|
Post by Horsie on Jun 8, 2015 1:47:04 GMT
I was waiting for someone to point that out.
|
|
|
Post by wordweaver3 on Jun 8, 2015 8:10:43 GMT
and people who honestly believe in their heart of hearts that they are animals are just being ridiculous. Thank you, Renard. Aside from the obvious irony I was hoping for this comment. What we're dealing with at the very core is identity. Why is it that transgendered people get the biggest say in this department? Why do we take someone who believes they're the opposite sex seriously and not someone who believes they're an animal, or a space alien, or an elf, or any number of other things? Really, from a genetic standpoint it could be argued that a man is closer to an animal than a woman anyway. Half a woman's genetic make up is totally different than a man's. Why is this a freak and this is someone who is misunderstood? There's really very little difference. It's all about identity. I think they both have the same rights to self expression. The only real difference is a woman becoming a man or vice versa is something we can grasp, even if we think it's "icky". Now as to the question as to it being healthy for the individual. Probably, but maybe not. Tying so much of yourself into your outward appearance can lead to obsessive behavior. Wearing a dress or putting on a fur suit isn't terribly dangerous. I mean, you might run into a psychopath that doesn't like your lifestyle, but other than that not so much. Going under the knife dozens of times for surgeries that you don't need to keep you alive simply to satisfy your inner woman or inner animal has risks. Surgery always carries with it the risk of death. Sure, we could say people do all sorts of dangerous things they needn't do. Skydiving, rock climbing, boxing, racing, scuba diving, just to name a few. And it could be argued that these people aren't quite "normal" either. If that's the case we should probably do away with gender separated lavatories altogether. Here's an interesting example. I know a transgender that I've had a friendly relationship with for a number of years. I knew him... er, her before she discovered herself. She dresses like a woman but has no intentions of any surgeries. So she has all the male bits. She also considers herself a lesbian. Cuz that's how it works in the transgender society. A trans who likes men is "straight" a trans who likes women is "gay". Is it okay for her to use the women's locker room and shower at the public pool? Do women have the right to ask her to leave?
|
|
|
Post by Canuovea on Jun 8, 2015 9:24:16 GMT
Whoa whoa whoa Wordweaver! To the best of my knowledge, humans have 24 Chromosomes, and only 2 of those are sex-linked. Besides, men have to have one X chromosome and the Y is just a slightly different X chromosome. So that is a 1 chromosome difference. We have far more in common with the opposite sex than we do with animals, who tend to have an entirely different number of chromosomes with vastly different information.
So... yeah. Far less than half a woman's genetic make up is different than a man's. And that difference seems to come down more so to which hormones are triggered during development of the fetus than anything else. Generally speaking, same content, slightly different assembly instructions.
And I think this plays into a bit of your other question too. It seems quite possible that the hormonal development during fetus development (and potentially after birth as well, depending on environment) could produce a more "female" identity in a more "male" body. As it were. Does this mean that a "mistake" was made during development? Not necessarily. That can just be how evolution works.
Take the latest look at the "gay gene." People may have been inclined to say that being gay is okay, but some kind of evolutionary failure. Not so. It appears that people (and animals, actually) who have this gene in a kind of heterozygous pairing (that is, the gene is partially active, for lack of an easier wording, and only part of the required genes are present) are more likely to have children (or just to have sex in general, therefore leading to more children). However, when the gene is homozygous (fully activated, all required genes are present), it results in homosexuality. That isn't a "mistake" that is just how evolution works. So far that gene has been successful enough to be passed on.
However (massive speculation incoming), there is no "animal" or "Non-human" DNA present for fetal development that would cause one to have a more "cat-like" brain (for instance) in a human body. It simply cannot be as easily linked to human genetics as homosexuality or transsexuality can be. I would suspect (but cannot be certain) that any deep seated urge to be a cat would be developed outside the womb and probably result from some kind of environmental factor. That doesn't necessarily mean it is any less serious of a desire, however.
And regardless of what the science may say on the origins, of course these people should be free to express themselves and be who they are so long as they are not harming others. It just seems worth pointing out the potential differences.
|
|
|
Post by Harkovast on Jun 8, 2015 12:52:17 GMT
You can dress up like a cat if you want. If anyone starts abusing anyone else for getting cat surgery, they are a total ass hole. If the cat person wants to shit in the street (as was the example earlier) then that's clearly a different matter. To pretend that those things are equivilant seems disingenious. It's the same reason you can get a prince albert, a tatoo in the middle of your face or anything else you want to do. If we aren't sympathetic to people like that, we are being jerks and need more sympathy for them, not less sympathy for transexuals.
Regarding changing rooms or bathrooms, there is another side to that which you have to consider. If a transexual woman goes into the male changing rooms, they are putting themselves in genuine danger. Harsh but true, transexuals get attacked physically a lot, so by making them use the bathroom that they don't want to, you may well get them beaten up. I've just not heard of any cases of men dressing up as women and claming to be transexual in order to get into the womens' changing rooms or bathrooms. Even if you are a pervert, that seems a super dangerous stratedgy as even if people believe you really ARE a transexual and 100% buy your story... they may beat you to death!
|
|