I'm going to take a break from this forum

Boston

deirdre_dub wrote: »

Nope - I'm finding the arrogance of people passing comment on things they clearly don't know enough about to be amusing.
Nawh - let's make straight people the sacred cow on this forum!
Here are some other view points and ideas that have (undoubtedly) been expressed on this forum - do you believe they should be allowed?

- all queers are f*cked up in the head
- gays and pedophiles come from the same stock
- LGBT people should be castrated/steralised

Boston - there are some ideas that are simply not welcome on this forum.

You've said that you don't know what those unwelcome ideas are when it comes to trans people. Myself and many others have been trying very hard indeed to educate you, but all you are doing with our education is jumping up-and-down about how you have the right to express whatever it is that you like and that we are all wrong and have persecution complexes etc.

If a straight person came on here, starting spouting the rubbish that I've spelled out above, and you tried to teach them, and then they started writing about how "gays are a sacred cow on this forum - some people might have this crazy notion of a free exchange of view points and ideals", what would you do?

You've no regard for the intent of the poster. No one is allowed to intentionally cause offence on this forum by posting inflammatory opinions. That's across the board. You simply don't feel others should be allow disagree with your view because they are "arrogant, inane and stupid" people.

This forum was ticking along just fine before you blessed us with your "education".

Annasopra

Boston wrote: »

You've no regard for the intent of the poster. No one is allowed to intentionally cause offence on this forum by posting inflammatory opinions. That's across the board. You simply don't feel others should be allow disagree with your view because they are "arrogant, inane and stupid" people.

This forum was ticking along just fine before you blessed us with your "education".

Are you actually deliberately trying to cause rows because you never agreed with having the transgender in the title in the first place?

Boston

Sorry did I start this thread? Did I start any of the other threads? Should I post up a list of the transgender issue threads which have been locked without me even posting in them? It's a bit rich to be pointing the finger at me.

But sure, whatever, I'm done with transgendered threads on this forum. I expect very shortly you'll start red carding and banning members and before long we can have the transgendered threads and the threads people actually engage in.

Remarkable how we never how to deal with the "You don't know what it's like" argument when mixing Lesbian, gay and bisexual threads.

Karl Hungus

I'll be very brief on this.

Boston wrote: »

I made the point that transgendered people are not biologically speaking the same as their "naturally born" counterparts. That is a statement of fact, it's irrefutable.

Boston wrote: »

If someone came onto this forum and said homosexuality is genetic, it would be OK for me to challenge that opinion but for whatever reason I'm not allow to challenge statement which are completely divorced from reality?

Boston wrote: »

When something like the suggestion that sex is a biological fact is taken as a complete slap in the face?

Boston, the above quotes are practically the same thing I've read on the various After Hours threads that I've since stopped posting on because of how circular the reasoning was. I've liked it to arguing with creationists. But what you're saying here, is almost identical to what some AH posters say, namely that it's a "biological fact" that transsexuals are really just blokes (or women if they're female to male) and will generally re-iterate the word fact as if the mere use of the word makes it true.

I see that the various sources of neurobiological evidence has been posted already in another thread, and had seemingly been dismissed out of hand, just like the usual AH bunch will dismiss said evidence. I will say that the term sex change is not an ambiguous description, and that is exactly what a transsexual individual does, they change their sex via cross sex hormones and surgical methods. The physical changes influenced by the hormone treatment are biological, and that the body of a person who undergoes such treatment becomes biologically female (or male). In terms of secondary sex characteristics, and transsexual individual is in a real, physical sense, that sex. A male to female transsexual, who has undergone a sex change is biologically the same as a born female, body weight distribution, bone mineral density, the pheromones the body produces, skin texture, everything, they are the same. Again, sex change is not an ambiguous description, it does exactly what it says on the tin.

In the same sense, we do consider that a woman with complete androgen insensitivity syndrome to be female. Not in some wishy-washy 'gender' way, but they are considered female in sex by medical science. Yet a woman with CAIS is genetically male, they have XY chromosomes, and they are in essence males who developed as females because they were unresponsive to male hormones in the womb. They have no female reproductive organs, uterus and such. But still, it is medically factual that their sex is female. A male-to-female transsexual who has changed sex has no uterus or ovaries, presumable has XY chromosomes (though that's not a general statement, many people can have varied chromosomal makeup, XXY and so forth), but their sex is female also.

I'm not trying to convince you of anything, I've seen before that any arguments about science and biology are routinely ignored by people who have already made their minds up about transsexuals, so I've little interest in having a discussion over human physiology and biology. I am telling you that you are wrong.

What you're doing here Boston, is saying that "I'm right, you're wrong, it's a biological fact, my opinion is irrefutable! Anyone who disagrees is completely divorced from reality! Fact!"

That people are getting upset over your arguments doesn't surprise.


PS. To the question would I date a transsexual. Yes, yes I would.

deirdre_dub

Boston wrote: »

You see I don't understand how you can go from the very basic statement of biological fact I made to "you're identity is invalid" I just don't see it.

If you "just don't see" one of the most fundamental aspects of the trans experience, then surely you can see the reasons why you should consider not posting to trans-related discussions?

Boston

Karl Hungus wrote: »

I'll be very brief on this.
Boston, the above quotes are practically the same thing I've read on the various After Hours threads that I've since stopped posting on because of how circular the reasoning was. I've liked it to arguing with creationists. But what you're saying here, is almost identical to what some AH posters say, namely that it's a "biological fact" that transsexuals are really just blokes (or women if they're female to male) and will generally re-iterate the word fact as if the mere use of the word makes it true.

Saying a transsexual is not biologically identical to their "naturally born" female counterparts is not equivalent to making determinations on their gender identity. I would never make such a clumsy and poorly thought out argument.

I fully accepted the neurobiology arguments put forward though some of the links put forward actually support the argument that transgendered people have distinct neurology. You say I ignored them, but these links where put forward to counter an argument I never made.

Karl Hungus wrote: »

The physical changes influenced by the hormone treatment are biological, and that the body of a person who undergoes such treatment becomes biologically female (or male). In terms of secondary sex characteristics, and transsexual individual is in a real, physical sense, that sex.

I never disputed this.

Karl Hungus wrote: »

A male to female transsexual, who has undergone a sex change is biologically the same as a born female, body weight distribution, bone mineral density, the pheromones the body produces, skin texture, everything, they are the same. Again, sex change is not an ambiguous description, it does exactly what it says on the tin.

Ah, this is where you're getting slightly disingenuous. A ftm transsexual isn't transplanted with testis to product testosterone? A mtf transsexual isn't transplanted with ovaries. You said it yourself, it is the secondary characteristics in combination with genital characteristics which are altered in a sex change operation.

What I said was

boston wrote:

Biologically speaking your statement is inaccurate.

That is what I said. The statement is inaccurate, it's not completely wrong, it just inaccurate. In absolutely no way does that suggest that ftm transsexual isn't a man or a mtf transsexual isn't a woman. If I believe that then I have to believe that a woman without ovaries wasn't a woman and a man without testis wasn't a man. Which would clearly be ridiculous. That inaccuracy can have huge ramifications in a relationship.

From a personal point of view I don't give a **** about someone's biology and I've always refereed to trangendered people using the pronouns they were comfortable with. I don't believe gender identity to be purely physical or even most physical. I don't think someone walks into an operating room a man and walks out a woman, I believe that in all likelihood a woman is exactly what they were their entire life.

But people immediately read into my statement what they perceived it to be. Which is ironic on a thread dealing with transgendered issue where preconception and perception are two things which should be tightly controlled. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say you read the counter arguments to my supposed argument before you read my actual post, if you read it at all. And hence already had your mind made up that I was in the wrong.

Annasopra

deirdre_dub wrote: »

If you "just don't see" one of the most fundamental aspects of the trans experience, then surely you can see the reasons why you should consider not posting to trans-related discussions?

hang on a second here - - This is an LGBT forum and I appreciate that Bostons posts have been very much personally attacking but posts like this have the potential to create a culture of only trans people are allowed post in trans threads and deepen the apparent problem that Eebs suggested earlier that this forum seems to becoming Us V Them.

deirdre_dub

Boston wrote: »

You simply don't feel others should be allow disagree with your view because they are "arrogant, inane and stupid" people.

I really really wish you would actually read what I write.

I didn't call anyone arrogant, inane or stupid. I said -

deirdre_dub wrote:

Some of the most innane, offensive, and stupidest remarks about transgendered people I've ever heard have come from LGB people.

I said that the remarks were stupid, not the people who made them. And I said them in the context of countering an argument which said that, because there is a "T" in "LGBT", it means that "LGB" people are qualified to "freely comment" on trans issues.

Rev Hellfire

deirdre_dub wrote: »

because there is a "T" in "LGBT", it means that "LGB" people are qualified to "freely comment" on trans issues.

Interesting, does that infer that those who are non-glb are not "free" to comment on the topic. I'm curious has to what special attribute do they have with the rest of us lack ?

Karl Hungus

Boston wrote: »

Saying a transsexual is not biologically identical to their "naturally born" female counterparts is not equivalent to making determinations on their gender identity. I would never make such a clumsy and poorly thought out argument.

No, I think what you are saying is in fact worse than making determinations on their gender identity, you are making determinations on their sex. Looking at the other thread, the crux of the issues comes from this post.

Someone said;

Because trans women are women and trans men are men. Not accepting that is transphobic simply because you decide trans people aren't authentic and aren't real. At the end of the day ALL transphobia comes down to that or the world would treat trans people with the same respect and decency as anyone else.

And to this, you directly replied;

Biologically speaking your statement is inaccurate.

One can only assume that the part you're referring to as inaccurate, is the part that asserts "trans women are women and trans men are men." In which case, you would be flatly stating that biologically speaking, trans women are not women and trans men are not men.

That was the first instance of someone mentioning biology, and it was you that brought it into the argument. It would seem, specifically brought up as to make a determination about transsexual people's sex and dispute the statement that trans men/women are men/women, or dispute that they have the agency to change their physical sex. Your repeated iterations of sex being a biological fact would back up this interpretation.

This would strike me as obscenely offensive, that you are basically saying to transgendered people: You might think you're men/women, but you're really not, and you can't change that. It's a biological fact, sorry.

That may or may not have been intentional, it could have been a slip up on your part. But I think what you're doing is refusing to see fault and blaming everyone else for getting upset. Seriously, just look at what you've said in that post. Someone said that trans people are this and that, and you directly respond that it is a "biologically inaccurate" statement. Come on Boston!

Boston

Ok, you've made your point about what you inferred from my post. Now, what is you opinion on what I actually stated. Please point out the flaw in my logic. I think I made it clear in that post and subsequent posts that I was referring to sex and not gender identity. You're suggestion is that I somehow mince my words, say one thing but mean another. That wouldn't be in character. I think the fault lies with the people who assumed I was ignorant of the distinction between sex and gender. And immediately came to the wrong conclusion. Even after I've made my feelings on the matter crystal clear, you yourself insist that I'm saying

"you might think you're men/women, but you're really not, and you can't change that"

I don't know how you still defending that position. Perhaps it's through the fuzzy logic already applied. In either case, you're not a post op transsexual, so I'm afraid you're not allowed have an opinion on this matter.

Karl Hungus

Boston wrote: »

I think I made it clear in that post and subsequent posts that I was referring to sex and not gender identity.

No, it is perfectly clear that you are referring to sex, and that's the problem. You're not saying anything about transsexuals gender, but you're certainly making statements and determinations about their sex. That's what's causing the strife, not that people are assuming you mean gender when you say sex, I think they know it's their sex you're attacking.

You still seem to be saying words to the effect of "you may be men/women in gender identity, but not in sex."

Aard

deirdre_dub wrote: »

In this context, the word "freely" is being used to signify someone talking authoritatively about something. Only a transgendered person can talk authoritatively about the transgendered experience, just as only a gay person can talk authoritatively about the gay experience.

When I used the word "freely", I meant to be able to talk without inhibitions or fear of reprimand. I did not mean to be able to talk authoritatively.

Sir Ophiuchus

Boston wrote: »

Sir Ophiuchus's post amounted to "Unless you're trans, you're in no position to call a spade a spade".

No, it didn't. What I said, in brief, was that claiming you can speak to a minority group's experience when you are not a member is at best fraught with tension and at worst arrogant and hurtful. Therefore it is in order to take care when so doing.

This is an excellent discussion of the topic of privilege and how it can be approached. I recommend it to everyone interested in or affected by such discussions.

Boston

Karl Hungus wrote: »

You still seem to be saying words to the effect of "you may be men/women in gender identity, but not in sex."

That's a lot closer, but more extreme then I personally would have put it. Your statement starts delving into the territory links brought up at the end of the other thread which I never had the chance to reply to. From a purely biological point of view, ignoring neurological and physiological characteristics (Though that maybe in and of itself a complete fallacy to assume one can take these things out of context without judging them on the whole) where exactly is the biological boundary between male and female? Someone with XY chromosomes can have female reproductive systems. Neither you nor I are qualified to start dictating what biological sex a person is. Nevertheless, a transsexual will never have the same biological characteristics as the naturally born counterparts. That's undeniable and irrefutable biological fact. Some of the characteristics can be changed, but not all. As such I think it's perfectly valid to say No I would not go out with a transsexual because biologically speaking there is a distinction, namely an inability to reproduce*.

But a key point is this. Even if someone had posted up "No, because I don't think they're authentic" or whatever, you'd have to allow it. There was a deliberately attempt to solicited negative opinions. Deirde_dub herself challenged people to offer their negative opinions. I really think that's a key point being missed. It's one thing when people come along and volunteer their opinion but when you actively ask people what they think, you pretty much have to a) take what they say at face value and b) accept what you're given.

A lot has been made of the abuse received by the trans people on this forum, and tbh they've been abused to an unprecedented level. But you have to look at why that's happening. I know this will come across as blaming the victim but so be it. If I stated a thread asking "Would you date a bi-sexual" I'm sure I'd get all kinds of nonsense answers but I wouldn't really be in a position to complain since the response were only made at my request.

Sir Ophiuchus wrote: »

No, it didn't. What I said, in brief, was that claiming you can speak to a minority group's experience when you are not a member is at best fraught with tension and at worst arrogant and hurtful. Therefore it is in order to take care when so doing.

This is an excellent discussion of the topic of privilege and how it can be approached. I recommend it to everyone interested in or affected by such discussions.

I'd challenge you to detail in what way I was speaking to a minority group's experiences. I argued that the thread was an over reaction, it was later shown to be exactly that. The "you don't know what it's like" card was used as a justification for the extreme reaction to the survey in question. I never challenged that, infact I suggested that past experiences maybe exactly what had biased the poster in question.

Your link btw, is an exercise in common sense. But as they say, common sense isn't exactly common.

*Just as a for instance as to my it was relevant to the thread in question.

wonderfulname

Interesting how this turned into exactly the type of head wrecker links was trying to avoid...

Boston

I don't know, I think I'm having a somewhat productive back and forth with Karl there. A little head wrecking was to be expected, it's why as a rule moderators tend not to allow discussions from locked threads to be restarted. People always need to get their last 2 cent in.

L.Jenkins

Boston wrote: »

People always need to get their last 2 cent in.

Well it looks like 40 or 50 euro was fúcked into the pot at this stage. Me thinks we all need to chill the fúck out for awhile.

Annasopra

Boston wrote: »

I don't know, I think I'm having a somewhat productive back and forth with Karl there. A little head wrecking was to be expected, it's why as a rule moderators tend not to allow discussions from locked threads to be restarted. People always need to get their last 2 cent in.

and you are also continuing the personal abuse against Deirdre. I left this open because I thought it might clear the air a bit and to some extent it has but the abuse you have given Deirdre has been nasty. This forum was actually relatively calm while you were not posting here - there were a couple of minor problems. Your point that boundaries on Trans threads need to be much clearer is actually in my view correct. I warned the other day about aggressiveness and I am getting really close to banning you for personal abuse of other posters.

Boston

Shrug, the forum ran pretty smoothly before you took over as well. If we're going to start the blame game. The largest source of trouble has been that "Questions" thread, a thread I haven't posted in, and you've supported.

Anyway, here we go with the threats just as things were claiming down. You've given no infractions and no direct warnings but you're prepared to start banning people. Is it really acceptable to start threads announcing your decision to depart the forum? Is it really acceptable to say "I'm not calling you inane, stupid and arrogant, just your posts"? But where are the infractions. It's a blind eye to that is it.

You're the moderator, ban who you like, I guarantee there'll be no come back on you from the management. But you might as well ban Rev and Aard while you're at it, and anyone one else with an independent thought process.

wonderfulname

Boston wrote: »

Shrug, the forum ran pretty smoothly before you took over as well. If we're going to start the blame game. The largest source of trouble has been that "Questions" thread, a thread I haven't posted in, and you've supported.

Anyway, here we go with the threats just as things were claiming down. You've given no infractions and no direct warnings but you're prepared to start banning people. Is it really acceptable to start threads announcing your decision to depart the forum? Is it really acceptable to say "I'm not calling you inane, stupid and arrogant, just your posts"? But where are the infractions. It's a blind eye to that is it.

You're the moderator, ban who you like, I guarantee there'll be no come back on you from the management. But you might as well ban Rev and Aard while you're at it, and anyone one else with an independent thought process.

I think that's what he means by agro, calm down, its only a forum.

Karl Hungus

Boston wrote: »

That's a lot closer, but more extreme then I personally would have put it. Your statement starts delving into the territory links brought up at the end of the other thread which I never had the chance to reply to. From a purely biological point of view, ignoring neurological and physiological characteristics (Though that maybe in and of itself a complete fallacy to assume one can take these things out of context without judging them on the whole) where exactly is the biological boundary between male and female? Someone with XY chromosomes can have female reproductive systems. Neither you nor I are qualified to start dictating what biological sex a person is. Nevertheless, a transsexual will never have the same biological characteristics as the naturally born counterparts. That's undeniable and irrefutable biological fact. Some of the characteristics can be changed, but not all. As such I think it's perfectly valid to say No I would not go out with a transsexual because biologically speaking there is a distinction, namely an inability to reproduce*.

Ah-HAH! You asked, where exactly is the biological boundary between male and female? That's a point that has been touched on, but hasn't really been delved into in detail. Because sex can be defined by genetic sex, genitalia sex, gonadal sex, hormonal sex, yet none of these are necessarily conclusive ways of defining sex. Take for example the problems that are endemic in sex testing in sporting events, trying to define a person's sex is a much more problematic thing than you might suspect. Links has touched upon the fact that sex (as in a person's biological sex) is far from a simple affair on one thread here, and it's true. There remains no conclusive scientific method to test for someone's sex, and sex testing in sports has been a testament to that. It's vastly more complex than simply one or the other.

And that's part of the point being made, I think. I frankly, know very little about this, it's just that complex a subject. But I'm in a position where I know enough that I can you are wrong in your assertions, and if scientific and medical minds who are in the top of their field cannot say for certain how to define sex, then you are far beyond your remit to claim that someone else is "biologically incorrect" when they say a transsexual woman is a woman.

Biological distinctions exist, of course, nobody says otherwise. But many other women are born without the ability to reproduce, yet that doesn't mean they are not female. Or they can be born with many other biological defects, someone with any genetic variation is biologically distinct from someone else, or someone with a physical defect and so on. But that isn't cause to say that someone isn't something, in this case, the sex they say they are.

You say that a transsexual will never have the same biological characteristics as their naturally born counterparts, namely an ability to reproduce, but that's a problematic statement for 2 reasons. 1, that there are many of their naturally born counterparts that cannot reproduce, and 2, the possibilities for future solutions have been well documented, and that a transsexual woman can theoretically carry a child with a donor womb, a medical advancement that can greatly benefit infertile women. Thus the biological distinctions become smaller/insignificant.

Boston wrote: »

You're the moderator, ban who you like, I guarantee there'll be no come back on you from the management. But you might as well ban Rev and Aard while you're at it, and anyone one else with an independent thought process.

You're sounding more than a little like this Boston.

I think this whole debacle can be quite succinctly summarised as - you've said something offensive, you won't admit you were in the wrong, and you're continually blaming others for taking offense and won't let go. Right now, you're being confrontational and aggressive towards the moderator, and goading him to not only ban you, but calling for him to ban others too. That's called a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Seriously man, you're in the wrong, and it's as if you're trying to make things worse for yourself to prove a point.

Boston

Karl Hungus wrote: »

And that's part of the point being made, I think. I frankly, know very little about this, it's just that complex a subject. But I'm in a position where I know enough that I can you are wrong in your assertions, and if scientific and medical minds who are in the top of their field cannot say for certain how to define sex, then you are far beyond your remit to claim that someone else is "biologically incorrect" when they say a transsexual woman is a woman.

Ah, but you're still inferring more from my statement. I did not say it was incorrect to ascribe a particular biology to a transexual, I said it was inaccurate to say transsexuals have the same biology as their naturally born counter parts.

Karl Hungus wrote: »

Biological distinctions exist, of course, nobody says otherwise. But many other women are born without the ability to reproduce, yet that doesn't mean they are not female. Or they can be born with many other biological defects, someone with any genetic variation is biologically distinct from someone else, or someone with a physical defect and so on. But that isn't cause to say that someone isn't something, in this case, the sex they say they are.

I made this exact point earlier

Karl Hungus wrote: »

You say that a transsexual will never have the same biological characteristics as their naturally born counterparts, namely an ability to reproduce, but that's a problematic statement for 2 reasons. 1, that there are many of their naturally born counterparts that cannot reproduce, and 2, the possibilities for future solutions have been well documented, and that a transsexual woman can theoretically carry a child with a donor womb, a medical advancement that can greatly benefit infertile women. Thus the biological distinctions become smaller/insignificant.

Some would argue that the biological distinctions are already insignificant, others would not. At this point you're moving into the area of opinion. I think someone is perfectly entitled to determine for themselves what they themselves find significant, and if asked, speak their mind.

Karl Hungus wrote: »

I think this whole debacle can be quite succinctly summarised as - you've said something offensive, you won't admit you were in the wrong, and you're continually blaming others for taking offense and won't let go. Right now, you're being confrontational and aggressive towards the moderator, and goading him to not only ban you, but calling for him to ban others too. That's called a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Seriously man, you're in the wrong, and it's as if you're trying to make things worse for yourself to prove a point.

Shrug. You're entitled to your opinion, even if it's one I don't agree with karl.

rainbow kirby

Threads of this sort are best suited to the Feedback forum.