Gender Identities

It’s not tyranny it’s just an obvious description of whether we’re male, female or hermaphrodite... and I just don’t get why it’s such a problem.

That’s fine, but I don’t then think it’s fair to say “it’s not difficult to grasp”, as if we should all just relate to it easily. Some of us don’t know what “feeling manly” or “feeling womanly” is even supposed to mean, nor is it obvious that there’s even a difference between these two sensations.

So when you say “imagine feeling the way you do but having a female body instead”, I don’t really see what the issue with that is. It would just mean I’m a woman instead of a man. I don’t imagine it would feel much like anything.

But you don't need to know what it means. I don't know what it means. The point is, there is no real need to question it because it doesn't affect you. No one asks you, "So when did you first realise you were a boy?" followed by "That's a bit odd isn't it?" And with that in mind, you don't really have the right to ask that of anyone else.

Which is why ultimately it comes down to just be nice. It is none of our business how others choose to be. We are allowed to be without question or prejudice so why can't others?

The mere fact that we try to understand or question is to some extent part of the problem. The reality is that it really doesn't matter.

I can agree with this to some extent. But it’s quite the U-turn from what you said earlier though. You’ve gone from saying “it’s not that difficult to grasp” to saying that we don’t need to understand it, and that you don’t even understand it yourself.

So it seems you’re revising your earlier position?

I’m confused. What you actually described earlier as “not difficult to grasp” was this:

”You presumably feel a man because you have male sexual organs and hormones. Now imagine feeling that way, but having female organs and hormones. Or visa versa. That is what it is like.

It really isn't that difficult to grasp.”

That looks like you were talking about people’s internal feelings and saying it should be easy to understand and imagine them. Whereas now you’re saying that we don’t need to understand them and that you don’t even understand them yourself - which is quite the opposite. (Not that there’s anything wrong with that; it’s perfectly fine to reconsider and revise an earlier position. I’m just asking for clarification of that).

I have explained myself. I am not prepared to argue the toss of semantics of what I said or didn't say.

Feel free to seek other texts that help explain it for you or (shock horror) speak to a trans person and ask them. I did. It really isn't as hard as you make out to understand not only what is going on, but also the horrors they face in daily life from an unsympathetic society.

I'm not asking you to "argue semantics". I'm simply asking you to confirm whether you're still standing by your original claim (from this post) or whether you've revised your position and are no longer claiming this. Because I can't tell from your explanations so far which of the two it is.

I said what I said. If you disagree fine. If you feel I have been inconsistent, fine.

It would just make your position clearer for the purposes of this discussion. I don’t think I’ve asked a particularly difficult question. It takes two seconds to say ‘yes I stand by my original claim” or “no I don’t, my view has changed”. But apparently you're reluctant to say which it is. Why is that?



Correct me if I’m wrong: what you've said is that their feelings are “not difficult to grasp”, but also that you don’t understand them yourself. You’ve said that I should “speak to a trans person" and ask them about it just like you did, but also that “the mere fact that we try to understand or question is part of the problem”.

Would you say that's consistent?

I stand by the claim that the whole subject isn’t difficult to grasp.
I stand by the idea that being empathetic towards people who are very different to ourselves is not hard to grasp.
I stand by the idea that understanding that someone might not feel the same gender as their sex is not difficult to grasp.
I stand by the idea that no one has the right to question how others feel and believe that is not difficult to grasp.
I stand by the idea that we should live and let live which I don’t believe is difficult to grasp.
What more do you want me to say?

By contrast, you appear not to be adding anything to the debate other than to point out perceived contradictions in my own arguments.

That’s not the question I asked. I’m specifically asking if you still stand by everything you said in this post. A simple “yes” or “no” is all I’m asking for. I really don’t see why that’s so difficult.



It’s a rather important part of any discussion, to try and understand the other person’s position on the issue in question. You’ve repeatedly said we should treat trans people with respect etc. but this isn’t a debate about whether we should treat trans people with respect or not. The question being asked in this thread is “what exactly does it mean to feel like / identify as a particular gender?”

Your answer to that particular question isn’t clear to me. You initially gave an explanation and said “it’s not difficult to grasp”, but then said you don’t even understand it yourself. I still can’t tell whether you’re actually claiming both of these things at once or whether you’ve changed your mind about one of them. Hence I’ve asked you a very simple “yes” or “no” question to clear that up.

Ok. I take back the point about "I don't understand it".

It isn't difficult to grasp. That is my opinion. What is yours?

I wouldn't say its too difficult to grasp, just that a certain segment of society has got a perverse sense of priorities for life. After all, lets be blunt, no one really cares about someones self proclaimed right to dress as the opposite sex and use their facilities compared to getting robbed in taxes, crime or food prices etc.
Most people couldn't give a toss one way or the other if someone decides to call them selves a girl, or boy, which ever. They might well start caring if said person starts being an ass about 'you must do x, y and z to indulge me' though. Simply put, in response to the usual claptrap about giving people the respect they deserve, respect is earned and not given by default. Certainly not for anyone, no matter their professed gender or sexuality, ordering normal people to make someone elses sexual proclivities the focal point of any reference to them.

Generally speaking, respect should be earned in situations where a considerable amount of respect is being given.

Everyone should be entitled to at least very basic levels of respect. This extends to respecting the identity of another person, transgender or not. Referring to someone by their chosen pronouns isn't a big ask.

The idea that we should accept everyone for who they are isn't difficult to grasp. That was my point earlier. And at the same time, it is not required to understand the inner workings, feelings or motivations of someone who presents themselves as being different to you or I, just as they don't question our inner workings, feelings or motivations for how we present ourselves even if we conform to a social norm.

Generally speaking, respect should be earned in situations where a considerable amount of respect is being given.

Everyone should be entitled to at least very basic levels of respect. This extends to respecting the identity of another person, transgender or not. Referring to someone by their chosen pronouns isn't a big ask.

I would disagree in that any and all respect should be earned. Someones mere existence is not really a cause. Of course that doesnt mean be an ass for no reason but equally why should my views play second fiddle to someone elses when they absolutely would not reciprocate?
The question has rarely, if ever, been about simply humouring someone on what pronoun they wish to have used. For example, the reverse is equally, if not more, true - why can said person not respect that not everyone holds the view that you can pick and chose your gender at whim?
I'm sure we're all familiar with the usual retort to someone not indulging this.. it usually involves evocations of genocide and being a neo-Nazi. Given such behaviour is anything but rare the next question is why is that worthy of any form of respect?

Simply put, it is not unreasonable to request that someone note you identify as x, y or z. It is utterly unreasonable to get *****y if they decline said offer as it is in conflict with their beliefs. Interestingly that neatly leads on to a separate, if not unrelated, issue around an irony of 'progressive tolerance' having extremely firmly marked demarcations on what can and cannot be respected. I.e. anything not in said camp must be disrespected.

I don't think that "basic levels of respect" include validating another person's identity regardless of what it is. If someone identifies themselves in a manner which I consider to be factually incorrect or misleading, I will respect their right to do that, but they're not automatically entitled to have me profess agreement with them. (Though I may still do so of my own accord, if I see fit.)

When someone demands for the way I communicate to be premised upon their worldview ahead of my own, I deem that to be a "considerable amount of respect" that they're expecting, and a considerable amount of disrespect that they're giving me at the same time.