Ungendering and a Lack of Respect

[littletwink]

Originally Posted by ila

Recently there have been some comments on here which ungender the transwomen of the world. This is not something new on here, but there have never been as many comments at one time as there has been in the last week.

By ungendering I mean making statements that ciswomen are "real women" and by inference that transwomen aren't real. As transwomen are real women then one is taking away transwomen's gender by inferring that they are not real women. Still other statements have referred to ciswomen as women and females whereas in the same post transwomen have been referred as tgirls. This is just another way to ungender transwomen by inferring that transwomen are neither women nor female. The men on here claim to love/admire/want transwomen and yet statements that ungender transwomen show a great lack of respect.

I am sure that some members have made these statements without realizing how hurtful it can be. There are still others that have made such statements knowing full well what the impact is.

I would like to remind the men here to show more respect to all transwomen. Please do not refer to ciswomen as the only real women. Remember that transwomen are real women and they are female.

To put this in perspective I would ask the men to think of how they would feel if they were referred to as she or her or any other feminine term. If you are offended or feel uncomfortable or even pissed off then you are on the path to realizing how a transwoman feels when she is ungendered.

To get a better perspective on this subject I encourage you to click on the link below. It will take you to the thread Real Girls which was started by Bionca.

http://forum.transladyboy.com/showthread.php?t=3444

When someone defines him or herself as one gender or the other, then I agree they have a right to consider themselves whatever they feel they are. I don't necessarily think that creates an obligation for anyone else to recognize a person's belief.

What makes no sense to me is this notion some put forward that a person must choose male or female and can be only one or the other. Speaking only for myself, I know that I am a male, but I also know that on some days I am very much a female, even though my physiology might not say so. Even if I derive some benefit in my mind from the labels, I do not NEED them to define who I am.

[smc]

Originally Posted by littletwink

When someone defines him or herself as one gender or the other, then I agree they have a right to consider themselves whatever they feel they are. I don't necessarily think that creates an obligation for anyone else to recognize a person's belief. ...

I could not disagree more with the statement above that I have quoted and put in bold. The right to self-determination of gender is absolutely meaningless unless we are obligated to acknowledge that the determination is iron-clad. Were I to use the word "belief" to describe to any of my trans friends their self-determination of their own gender, I would expect to be kicked in the balls -- deservedly -- as their last act before dropping me as a friend.

[ila]

Originally Posted by smc

I could not disagree more with the statement above that I have quoted and put in bold. The right to self-determination of gender is absolutely meaningless unless we are obligated to acknowledge that the determination is iron-clad. Were I to use the word "belief" to describe to any of my trans friends their self-determination of their own gender, I would expect to be kicked in the balls -- deservedly -- as their last act before dropping me as a friend.

My thoughts exactly. I couldn't have said it better.

[littletwink]

Originally Posted by smc

I could not disagree more with the statement above that I have quoted and put in bold. The right to self-determination of gender is absolutely meaningless unless we are obligated to acknowledge that the determination is iron-clad. Were I to use the word "belief" to describe to any of my trans friends their self-determination of their own gender, I would expect to be kicked in the balls -- deservedly -- as their last act before dropping me as a friend.

An individual's right to self-determination is not in any way infringed upon by another individual choosing to see things differently.

They can say "I will not respond to comments seeking to strip me of MY self-determined gender", but they cannot prohibit a person from thinking whatever it is they want to.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think you're saying that there are only 2 distinct genders and I could not disagree more with the assertion that everyone fits into 1 of only 2 possible boxes.

[smc]

Originally Posted by littletwink

An individual's right to self-determination is not in any way infringed upon by another individual choosing to see things differently.

What you state with such certainty in the quote above belies a complete lack of understanding of what it means to have "rights." A person's right to something is meaningless without actuation of that right. Further, a right is an absolute; otherwise, it is also meaningless.

If you make it okay for someone to "see things differently" in that context, you are taking away the right.

Imagine if all the anti-discrimination laws that grew out of the civil rights movement in the United States were not enforced simply because the person who denied a black man entry into his restaurant said to that man, "Sure, the law says I can't deny any person the the right to eat here, but I don't consider blacks to be people, so I don't have to serve you. Sorry, but I just see things differently."

You may laugh at my analogy, but it is precisely the basis upon which blacks in the United States were denied rights for a very, very long time.

Originally Posted by littletwink

They can say "I will not respond to comments seeking to strip me of MY self-determined gender", but they cannot prohibit a person from thinking whatever it is they want to.

Now, let's extend your logic further with the analogy. As I understand it, the black man denied entry to the restaurant should simply not respond? After all, the restaurant owner, by your account, has an equal right to disbelieve that blacks are people.

Originally Posted by littletwink

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think you're saying that there are only 2 distinct genders and I could not disagree more with the assertion that everyone fits into 1 of only 2 possible boxes.

I said absolutely nothing about how many distinct genders there are in my response. Your last statement is completely irrelevant to my point.

[littletwink]

Originally Posted by smc

What you state with such certainty in the quote above belies a complete lack of understanding of what it means to have "rights." A person's right to something is meaningless without actuation of that right. Further, a right is an absolute; otherwise, it is also meaningless.

If you make it okay for someone to "see things differently" in that context, you are taking away the right.

Imagine if all the anti-discrimination laws that grew out of the civil rights movement in the United States were not enforced simply because the person who denied a black man entry into his restaurant said to that man, "Sure, the law says I can't deny any person the the right to eat here, but I don't consider blacks to be people, so I don't have to serve you. Sorry, but I just see things differently."

You may laugh at my analogy, but it is precisely the basis upon which blacks in the United States were denied rights for a very, very long time.

Now, let's extend your logic further with the analogy. As I understand it, the black man denied entry to the restaurant should simply not respond? After all, the restaurant owner, by your account, has an equal right to disbelieve that blacks are people.

I'm not comfortable with the idea of a person or group telling individuals what they must think or believe. Behavior and actions are separate from thoughts and beliefs, though. Are behaviors and actions usually predicated upon beliefs? Certainly, but while behaviors and actions can be mandated and enforced legally, thoughts and beliefs cannot.

In the case of your shopkeeper, while he may be required to accept black customers, he still has the right to view those customers as non-persons.

You wish to mandate certain language when it comes to discussing the TG community, but language alone is not a guarantee or even a requisite for understanding and understanding is not a guarantee of societal acceptance. As a member of that community myself - albeit part-time, by some definitions - I am not bothered by another person's refusal of my self-identification.

You are saying that the denial of one's gender identity by another is wrong and is offensive and in many cases, that is probably a fair interpretation. However, not every TG individual is offended and I personally do not wish to be placed in that box, nor do I think I should be chastised for my reluctance to conform.

Again, I'm ok with not being recognized as a man or woman (as the case may be!) and several of my TG friends are very much the same. Just because we may be in the minority does not mean we shouldn't be allowed to think or feel this way.

By the same token, I will not demand that a non-TG person acknowledge my gender as a function of acknowledging my personhood. I am not my gender. My depth as a person goes much deeper than that and I feel that getting hung up on my transgenderism would actually cheapen my value as a person.

Other TG persons will feel completely differently - their gender identity and acknowledgment of same is absolutely vital to their everyday existence - and I fully respect their right to feel that way.

[smc]

Originally Posted by littletwink

I'm not comfortable with the idea of a person or group telling individuals what they must think or believe. Behavior and actions are separate from thoughts and beliefs, though. Are behaviors and actions usually predicated upon beliefs? Certainly, but while behaviors and actions can be mandated and enforced legally, thoughts and beliefs cannot.

In the case of your shopkeeper, while he may be required to accept black customers, he still has the right to view those customers as non-persons.

You wish to mandate certain language when it comes to discussing the TG community, but language alone is not a guarantee or even a requisite for understanding and understanding is not a guarantee of societal acceptance. As a member of that community myself - albeit part-time, by some definitions - I am not bothered by another person's refusal of my self-identification.

You are saying that the denial of one's gender identity by another is wrong and is offensive and in many cases, that is probably a fair interpretation. However, not every TG individual is offended and I personally do not wish to be placed in that box, nor do I think I should be chastised for my reluctance to conform.

Again, I'm ok with not being recognized as a man or woman (as the case may be!) and several of my TG friends are very much the same. Just because we may be in the minority does not mean we shouldn't be allowed to think or feel this way.

By the same token, I will not demand that a non-TG person acknowledge my gender as a function of acknowledging my personhood. I am not my gender. My depth as a person goes much deeper than that and I feel that getting hung up on my transgenderism would actually cheapen my value as a person.

Other TG persons will feel completely differently - their gender identity and acknowledgment of same is absolutely vital to their everyday existence - and I fully respect their right to feel that way.

What is most notable about your latest response is how you have sought to shift the terrain. Earlier, you wrote:

Originally Posted by littletwink

An individual's right to self-determination is not in any way infringed upon by another individual choosing to see things differently.

When you take up my shopkeeper example, you write that the shopkeeper has a right to view black customers as non-persons, but may still be required to accept black customers.

What good is the shopkeeper's "right" to his belief if it cannot be actuated? Does it transcend the right of the black person to enter his shop? When a dispute erupts, which right should be defended by law? The right of conscience or the right of access?

Rights of conscience are tricky things. They are used by people to deny the obvious truth (blacks are, indeed, persons) and justify the denial of reasonable rights to others for all sorts of reasons.

You write regarding language, and of course you are correct that "language alone is not a guarantee ... for understanding." But you are wrong that language is not a requisite for understanding.

Most important, you write that you are "not bothered by another person's refusal of my self-identification." I suspect that you have not had your rights infringed in the manner of the black person in my example. I would not pretend to know anything about you specifically, but in my experience, those who have never truly felt the lash of outright discrimination are the one's who can most readily cede the pseudo-"right of conscience" to those who wield the lash.

[littletwink]

Originally Posted by smc

What is most notable about your latest response is how you have sought to shift the terrain. Earlier, you wrote:

When you take up my shopkeeper example, you write that the shopkeeper has a right to view black customers as non-persons, but may still be required to accept black customers.

What good is the shopkeeper's "right" to his belief if it cannot be actuated? Does it transcend the right of the black person to enter his shop? When a dispute erupts, which right should be defended by law? The right of conscience or the right of access?

Rights of conscience are tricky things. They are used by people to deny the obvious truth (blacks are, indeed, persons) and justify the denial of reasonable rights to others for all sorts of reasons.

You write regarding language, and of course you are correct that "language alone is not a guarantee ... for understanding." But you are wrong that language is not a requisite for understanding.

Most important, you write that you are "not bothered by another person's refusal of my self-identification." I suspect that you have not had your rights infringed in the manner of the black person in my example. I would not pretend to know anything about you specifically, but in my experience, those who have never truly felt the lash of outright discrimination are the one's who can most readily cede the pseudo-"right of conscience" to those who wield the lash.

I cannot possibly know what it was like to live in those times. No, I have never been told "we don't serve your kind here", and thankfully, I've never been the victim of a violent crime. Sure, I got beaten up a few times when I was younger and won a few fights, too, but I wouldn't consider those incidents criminal, even if I was sometimes teased for being 'different'.

I've been called names (who hasn't?) and teased behind my back, but no, I have never been called "queer" by someone who had something I wanted like a job or service. I'm not saying I want to experience that treatment either, but being called certain names doesn't bother me like it does many others, because to my knowledge, I've only ever been called those names by idiots. If others chose to discriminate against me on less trivial matters, I was never aware of it.

With regards to my prior statement, I appreciate your further explanation, but I don't think any modification is in order. What I identify myself as is in no way predicated upon how another will choose to identify me. Granted, I have the good fortune of being quite secure in both my manhood and my womanhood separately, plus I am also very happy with my androgyny, but I am the only one who determines how I will identify myself.

If others choose not to accept my identification, it's their right to make that choice. I don't want to make the argument too circular in restating too many points, but I don't WANT the power to force my personal thoughts and beliefs upon another person, nor would I ever grant anyone the power to do it to me. I may be a sub, but not even I am that submissive.

[JodieTs]

Originally Posted by littletwink

I'm not comfortable with the idea of a person or group telling individuals what they must think or believe. Behavior and actions are separate from thoughts and beliefs, though. Are behaviors and actions usually predicated upon beliefs? Certainly, but while behaviors and actions can be mandated and enforced legally, thoughts and beliefs cannot.
You wish to mandate certain language when it comes to discussing the TG community, but language alone is not a guarantee or even a requisite for understanding and understanding is not a guarantee of societal acceptance. As a member of that community myself - albeit part-time, by some definitions - I am not bothered by another person's refusal of my self-identification.

Originally Posted by littletwink

When someone defines him or herself as one gender or the other, then I agree they have a right to consider themselves whatever they feel they are. I don't necessarily think that creates an obligation for anyone else to recognize a person's belief.

I agree with you on the highlighted section.
It's ludicrous to expect society to control an individuals thoughts on something; like in this case the way a person feels inside about another person and their gender representation.
I think that we now split in our thoughts.

• I feel it is always appropriate for everyone in society to interact with a trans-variance person, in such a way that reflects their adopted gender. If a person appears to have male background but their attire says female, treat them as female.
• Likewise for F2M's where they may have some female 'Tells' but are clearly representing themselves as male, then treat them, as male.
• For a person who is not easy to categorise such as gender-fuck, then a polite discrete question asking them how they wish to be addressed, seems reasonable.

That would seem to be both polite,cover all bases and not require anyone to compromise their internal views.
Stay bigoted, but don't be rude and show it.

Of course anyone with strong anti-trans views will never come on TLB to read this so I'm probably preaching to the converted.

[jmshemalelover]

We do need to watch what we say and HOW we say it. Tgirls are real women and the correct term for vagina born women is genetic female. I learned that from a post operative friend of mine years ago and that the terms cut or chop is insulting as well. Gender reasignment surgery does not remove the gentelia, but in fact just reconstructs it. Nothing is removed except the testicles and the head of the penis while the rest is reconfigured into a vagina.

I know that a lot of people out there run into this misconception and before I even got involved in the community here or even at work from those who do not know better, say things like that. Then many people even say that transwomen are gay men. Then some trans girls even consider them that as well by actions. For example the same sex marrage issue is not only their political or moral belief, but some talk about it like they themselves believe that transwomen are men and to disallow it would prevent them from eventually marrying themselves. If you are a true female then you should be interested in the same sex marrage for political or personal beliefs just like many hetrosexuals do or even some religious people do and there are even some homosexuals who do not believe in it. Not because it disallows you to have a family.

Also, many should not knock a girl because she has the surgery. I hear so many say bad things about Danielle Fox going all the way like she is trash now. Then some say in general that they have no use for post ops. That is insulting! I can understand you wanting a girl to keep her penis and it is attractive as well, but we need to respect the individual. If they themselves want to go through with the surgery, than we should support them just as those who want to keep their penises. I have heard some post op females make remarks against other women who do not have the surgery as well. I have heard comments like freaks, or not really thinking like a female come out of some.

Respect is the key word! I may not like what my fellow man does, but that does not mean I am going to bully him or call him names cause he believes something I think is politically or morally wrong. He or she will get respect out of me totally.

I started out here, as one who was fascinated by the anatomy of the transgendered, but I was still always respectful toward ALL women! I am sorry that it happened. After meeting and dating some girls, I have learned that you women are nice people and feel for your hard life that you have to live. I now do like especially making new friends cause of what I have learned. I am single, to let you know, and I actually stopped looking around for my special one and have no interest in dating right now. I just like mingling with my fellow human beings and helping others. To settle down with anyone requires full commitment and if you can not give it, do not waste another individual's time. That is why so many broken hearts out there taking place and a lot of uncertain interests in many men when seeking a relationship.

Now this is only my opinion. Not saying that it is total fact, but what I feel about this.