Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Typical ignorant transphobia from Daily Mail and its readership? Watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Am now awaiting NYU to come and "explain" to us how transgendered people are actually an entirely new "third sex" and then ignorantly conflate transgenderism, bisexuality, Klinefelters syndrome and anatomical hermaphroditism as if they were in any way related.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by py0alb)
    Ignorance from the Daily Mail, how shocked I am.

    The young gentleman in question is sexually female, gender male. You should address him how he wishes to be addressed, its only polite. Whether or not this condition warrants NHS funding is a matter that we don't really have all the information to be able to make an informed decision. Where else could the money be spent?
    is whether or not to fund transgender care, really that much of a debate?

    you really have two options;

    Option A, being no funding for sex-change ops/HRT etc.

    -- that plays out something like this:

    • Trans people dont get the care they need
    • Large increase in trans suicides (its already at 30%)
    • NHS has to foot the bill for all the A+E trips, medical treamtent for self harm+ attempted suicide injuries, after suicide care, life-long councelling, treatment for depression, anxiety etc. etc.
    • A fair number of these trans people end up out of work, and not functioning in society well - due to the mix of mental problems caused by not being treated, and end up on benifits, being a further expense to the state.


    Option B, what we currently have goes something like this:

    • Trans people get the care they need. - its a fraction of the costs mentioned above, 1 off sugery + minimal life long support (HRT costing £30 a month) - totaling to a fraction, of the possible costs mentioned in option A
    • Post sugery (which has a HUGE sucsess rate) the trans person goes back and leads a normal life, integrates with society, pays taxes... and contributes financially to the state, paying back the money spent on him/her.


    Ofcourse this is very simplified.. but you get the idea.. - Its much better, financially, to treat trans people the way they currently are..
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by py0alb)
    Ignorance from the Daily Mail, how shocked I am.

    The young gentleman in question is sexually female, gender male. You should address him how he wishes to be addressed, its only polite. Whether or not this condition warrants NHS funding is a matter that we don't really have all the information to be able to make an informed decision. Where else could the money be spent?
    My personal feeling is that if you are born female, you are always female. I don't think I could date a man who became a woman because it would always feel like I was dating a man. However that said, I would address the person however they wanted to be addressed out of politeness. Also "live and let live" - Whatever makes them happy. It's not for me to decide what an adult does to their body.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Name:  styles.jpg
Views: 67
Size:  213.4 KB

    Just read it, second comment down, crying with laughter.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Funtry)
    To be brutally honest, and as much as it pains me to say this, some of the commenters are right. This should not be done on the NHS, especially with all the different places that the money could go, all the understaffed wards etc.

    If he wants to look like Harry Styles, he should save up and pay for it himself, much like I want a 20 bed mansion with a swimming pool and a tennis court, but I wont go running to my local housing authority and claim it's my right as I have a condition that means I have to live in a massive house.

    *Waits to get negged*
    It shouldn't pain you to say it because it's right. When you need a life-saving cancer operation and you can't get it because there's not enough money around then you'll know who's responsible.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Farm_Ecology)
    People are not born gay, people are not born psychopaths and people are not with born gender identity disorder. While a great deal of potential causes of homosexuality, GID, psychopathy and depression can develop pre-nataly, the brain isn't anywhere near developed enough to say people are born with any of these issues. They develop over time from a whole series of factors.

    While I do think gender reassignment surgery is a good potential treatment for some GID cases. But the way this person (in the article) is portraying themselves is the wrong way to do it. I do think however, that the Daily Mail may be latching onto the idea about looking like the 1D singer more than she is.

    As for calling her a she. Technically she is a she, and I see nothing wrong with that.
    yes people are born both gay and psychopaths. there is a difference between someone having ASPD and being a psychopath, if you have ASPD then while you have many/all "traits" of psychopathy, it is caused by environmental factors. psychopathy is not.

    she may "technically" be a she but what does that matter? it is clearly know he has GID so why not be polite and call him by his gender (which he probably prefers) rather than being obtuse and purposfully offensive? how does it affect you in any way? it's not really that hard unless you are stupid.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bellissima)
    yes people are born both gay and psychopaths. there is a difference between someone having ASPD and being a psychopath, if you have ASPD then while you have many/all "traits" of psychopathy, it is caused by environmental factors. psychopathy is not.
    No, people are not born gay or psychopathic. Any more than people are born depressed or with Huntington's disease.

    What you said about ASPD being environment and psychopathy not in completely wrong. They are two separate disorders with a deal of overlap. Both disorders, like almost every neurological disorder, have disease-assosciated genes which by no means guarantee development of the disorder. Usually, a combination of genetic and environmental factors will result in the development of the disorder, but it may develop without either. In other words, people are not born psycopaths, it develops during development.

    A similar case exists with homosexuality. Like any number of preferences, these are developed over time. Some people may be born with more of a slant towards homosexuality, but again its something that develops during the persons development. Twin studies pretty much show that there are a whole host of factors involved. And common sense should tell you that people arnt born with any automatic sexual preferences.

    (Original post by Bellissima)
    she may "technically" be a she but what does that matter? it is clearly know he has GID so why not be polite and call him by his gender (which he probably prefers) rather than being obtuse and purposfully offensive? how does it affect you in any way? it's not really that hard unless you are stupid.
    Because not everyone is aware of the etiquette when talking to a transgender. You assumption that both the interviewers and the Sun deliberately called him a she to be offensive is quite ignorant. And like most people, I would wager they did what comes naturally, when in doubt stick with what is familiar. Considering most people havent had dealings with transgenders, the natural reaction would be to refer to them by sex. That isn't being deliberately offensive.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by perfectsymbology)
    It shouldn't pain you to say it because it's right. When you need a life-saving cancer operation and you can't get it because there's not enough money around then you'll know who's responsible.
    Taken from a previous post - It is fincially preferable to treat transgender patients, and saves alot of money in the long run:



    is whether or not to fund transgender care, really that much of a debate?

    you really have two options;

    Option A, being no funding for sex-change ops/HRT etc.

    -- that plays out something like this:
    Trans people dont get the care they need
    Large increase in trans suicides (its already at 30%)
    NHS has to foot the bill for all the A+E trips, medical treamtent for self harm+ attempted suicide injuries, after suicide care, life-long councelling, treatment for depression, anxiety etc. etc.
    A fair number of these trans people end up out of work, and not functioning in society well - due to the mix of mental problems caused by not being treated, and end up on benifits, being a further expense to the state.

    Option B, what we currently have goes something like this:
    Trans people get the care they need. - its a fraction of the costs mentioned above, 1 off sugery + minimal life long support (HRT costing £30 a month) - totaling to a fraction, of the possible costs mentioned in option A
    Post sugery (which has a HUGE sucsess rate) the trans person goes back and leads a normal life, integrates with society, pays taxes... and contributes financially to the state, paying back the money spent on him/her.

    Ofcourse this is very simplified.. but you get the idea.. - Its much better, financially, to treat trans people the way they currently are..
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Farm_Ecology)
    You assumption that both the interviewers and the Sun deliberately called him a she to be offensive is quite ignorant.
    just a quick point - whilst I can empathise with individual people/small organsiations not knowing how to respond to a trans person... - the sun, is a huge publcation, that prints trans-related stories on a near regular basis.. almost all of which, are consistanly printed wrong. It has also been pointed out to them..(and other publications) by members of the LGBT community, that what they are doing is wrong/offensive. - yet they continue to do so.

    It is no mistake... however its also not meant to be offensive either... - they are simply choosing to use the terms the general public use, instsead of the 'correct' and polite terms that LGBT people, and people connected to trans people know to use..

    Its offensive, and hurtful to trans people.. and I hate reading about a fellow transperson being missgendered - and insulted... but I can see why they do it.. you have to appeal to your readership and all..

    hope that clears things up a bit..
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: January 9, 2013
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.