Is being Transgender a choice?

[AgnosticBoy]

I'm of the opinion that gender expression is a result of social conditioning. I know I used the word "choice" in the title, but that's only because people tend to associate behavior that can be changed or conditioned as being a "choice" (borrowing from the debate on born this way vs. choice).

In this thread, I want to focus on being transgender. Based on my above opinion, I also believe that being transgender is also a result of social conditioning (i.e. childhood experiences, what they learn from society, etc). If I'm right then I think that the recent focus on transgenderism in the media, in Hollywood, in schools, could lead some children to become transgender. And there is nothing wrong with that.

I also bring these points up because when some parents complain about their kids learning about transgenderism in school, the reaction is that it won't impact (some say "groom" ) the child into becoming transgender. If my view is correct, I think the pro-trans crowd should acknowledge that it can potentially influence children AND there's nothing wrong with that.

For Debate
1. Is being transgender a result of social conditioning?
2. Edit: Removed. Teaching kids about gender identity can be a separate thread.

[Purple Knight]

While such things should be considered, I still wouldn't say that considering the source alone proves a study or view wrong because it is possible for good/true information to come from bad/questionable sources.

I actually think where the Left has white people is a good place for all people to start from when it is proven or obvious that they have some bias or vested interest. Bias is assumed to have an effect on your actions and you must prove your innocence. If you can't, it doesn't mean your claims are wrong, just that you should not have the benefit of trust. Thankfully that's why we have the concept of replication in science. If someone who ought to prove themselves innocent, cannot do so, the right way to approach their claims is to try to replicate them.

Outside of a scientific environment, we unfortunately sometimes have to declare people guilty in the case that they have a known vested interest, and they cannot prove their innocence. And all people have a vested genetic interest in helping genetic likes, and when they have the power to do so, it becomes a problem. So if we have some white manager hiring 50 white people and denying 50 Black people with equal credentials "because personality" (even though it's known that managers often use meaningless social rubbish rather than credentials to determine who gets the job) then we have to assume he's guilty of racial discrimination and punish him appropriately.

If, without making people prove their innocence, it is demonstrable that some unwanted behaviour can be gotten away with because there's no way to catch it, then we must make people prove their innocence. The easy example is that in a bodybuilding contest, if we want no steroids, we need to test people for steroids, because if we don't, they'll just take the steroids and lie, since they have a clear interest in doing that. Innocent until proven guilty sounds nice, but it does not cover situations where people have an interest in cheating and we can't catch them doing it.

By the way, I appreciate that a lot of your posts show open-mindedness (outside the box, not always black-and-white, nuanced) and intelligence. Such a combination is hard to find, and it's very agnostic-like.

Thanks. It means a lot. I take a lot of flak for it actually.

Open-mindedness used to be considered a virtue everywhere. It's crossed into the domain of what I call moral sociality, where you're not actually supposed to do it, but pretend to it the best, and use it to berate others who do not pretend as well, sort of like "being nice" has always been. You're supposed to always be sniffing for anything you can interpret as someone being mean, expose it, call the troupe, hoot angrily at them, and use it to gain social status over that person, which ironically isn't very nice, but everyone understands it's not about being actually nice. Someone who actually does that thing we're supposed to be pretending to, is seen as stupid, a submissive individual there to be exploited and dominated by the chimps who are better at sociality, and everyone kind of understands that.

I'm not sure morality exists outside of moral sociality, though maybe it used to. It's certainly true that if rules like "no murdering" fully crossed into that territory, and everyone kind of understood that you're supposed to murder when you can get away with it, while sniffing for anything you can interpret as murder and using the cry of "murderer" to denounce and gain dominance, the safety moral sociality is built upon would crumble. I don't think modern man still has that distinction though, between a real moral line they actually won't cross and moral sociality. I think they just... haven't yet discovered that they're not really against murder. Their mindset has changed to every moral rule being a purely social one, but they don't think about it actively and thus the world hasn't quite caught up yet.

[brunumb]

I listened to this 65 minute video for 14 minutes and switched off at their first advert to sell the services of 'babbel'.

Then you missed some of the more important part where the discussion moves to the issue of transitioning young children. It's not that people have anything against trans people in general, it's the unwarranted push to chemically and surgically mess around with children and young adults.

[brunumb]

I watched the video. I can see why some would perceive the psychiatrist to be a bigot since spent 99% of the time being critical of transgenderism, and even brought up the dark side of the doctor that coined the terms "gender" and "gender identity". I wouldn't say that she is a bigot just because she disagrees with transgenderism for the most part. I'd want to see evidence or clear signs of bias or prejudice and hatred.

Was she critical of transgenderism as such, or against the the recent trend to accept self-diagnosis on the part of young people and push them in the direction of possibly unnecessary chemical and medical interventions? The way I see it, the latter is what most people are concerned with, not with adults choosing to live their lives expressing the opposite of their biological sex. Notice too how that is always binary in nature.

[oldbadger]

I don't mind any religious views and drives at all, but I cannot stand bullies and those who would control and dominate other people's lives.

Would support humans that would use the pronouns that 'they' see fit when addressing others, or would you seek to control them by mandating their speech? Just curious where you fall on this.

Please can you give me an example?
Are you talking about humans who use pronouns to deliberately upset other people?
If so, why deliberately upset people?

[oldbadger]

I listened to this 65 minute video for 14 minutes and switched off at their first advert to sell the services of 'babbel'.

Then you missed some of the more important part where the discussion moves to the issue of transitioning young children. It's not that people have anything against trans people in general, it's the unwarranted push to chemically and surgically mess around with children and young adults.

Since the woman in the video is a school teacher then I doubt that she would have mentioned any cases....... did she mention any cases? If so please just tell me where to listen to her about that.

You see, I don't know of any cases where a child has been transitioned ....... Young people are probably in control of their own lives, driving licence holders maybe? Let's hear about a child who was transitioned and the circumstances around that individual case.

[Clownboat]

Please can you give me an example?
Are you talking about humans who use pronouns to deliberately upset other people?

We are allowed to upset people, deliberately or not. So that seem irrelevant to me unless someone is seeking to control people by not allowing them to be jerks (whether on purpose or by accident).
I'm testing your claim that you cannot stand bullies who would control and dominate other people's lives for consistency.
So I asked: "Would you support humans that would use the pronouns that 'they' see fit when addressing others?"

If so, why deliberately upset people?

I don't argue for deliberately upsetting people, but do see it as necessary at times.
Some people are jerks and it is important and valuable information to have as far as who the jerks are. It is also important that we are allowed to make people feel uncomfortable, even if they get upset.

Try investigating a pedophile without using words that might offend the said person.
Is it fair that Trump feels uncomfortable when being interviewed about things he said in the past? Yes it is I say, even if the interviewer is deliberately making him upset by asking some questions that might be uncomfortable for him.

If your goal is to not allow people to deliberately offend others, that would be seeking to control and dominate them, something you claim to be against.

I don't use the N word, but it is important for society that I be known as the racist jerk (I likely would be) if I did go around using the said word. I'm not pro N word or pro jerk, I'm pro letting people show their true colors to others, which is the opposite of controlling or dominating them I would add.

Society already doesn't approve of white people using the N word. No need to seek to control people that choose to show their true colors.
If society doesn't approve of purposely using the wrong pronouns, there is also no need to seek to control people that choose to show their true colors.

I'm against those who would control and dominate. Are you?
Thus the question: "Would you support (not approve) humans that would use the pronouns that 'they' see fit when addressing others?"

[Purple Knight]

Try investigating a pedophile without using words that might offend the said person.
Is it fair that Trump feels uncomfortable when being interviewed about things he said in the past? Yes it is I say, even if the interviewer is deliberately making him upset by asking some questions that might be uncomfortable for him.

I think you've hit on the Truth with a capital T: It's okay to make bad people upset.

Heroism. I've noticed this since I was a kid. The hero can punch the bad guy all day, and it's fine. It's fine even if the crime the bad guy committed was punching someone he thought was a bad guy. And you know why? Because what makes him a bad guy, is that he is wrong.

[brunumb]

So I asked: "Would you support humans that would use the pronouns that 'they' see fit when addressing others?"

Pronouns are part of language that allow us to refer to another person without the use of their given name. Instead of the impersonal 'it' used for objects, we use a pronoun which to us is consistent with how that person presents as a person, 'he' or 'she'. The invention of all these other neo-pronouns serves no useful purpose other than to pander to the narcissistic and those who wish to impose their control over the speech of others. Those pronouns are now just replacement names, and to have a mental breakdown when someone forgets your name is rather pathetic really. Have people really become so fragile and dependent on the affirmation of others, particularly strangers?

[oldbadger]

We are allowed to upset people, deliberately or not. So that seem irrelevant to me unless someone is seeking to control people by not allowing them to be jerks (whether on purpose or by accident).
I'm testing your claim that you cannot stand bullies who would control and dominate other people's lives for consistency.
So I asked: "Would you support humans that would use the pronouns that 'they' see fit when addressing others?"

But you couldn't give me an example? OK.

I don't argue for deliberately upsetting people, but do see it as necessary at times.
Some people are jerks and it is important and valuable information to have as far as who the jerks are. It is also important that we are allowed to make people feel uncomfortable, even if they get upset.

But does anybody think that you are a jerk? What if a neighbour insisted on insulting you on sight? It might be better to learn how to get along......yes?

Try investigating a pedophile without using words that might offend the said person.
Is it fair that Trump feels uncomfortable when being interviewed about things he said in the past? Yes it is I say, even if the interviewer is deliberately making him upset by asking some questions that might be uncomfortable for him.

I'll guess that you've never investigated a pedophile in your life. Or can you tell me differently?
And if you are an investigator then you would never 'investigate pedophile's' but suspects....true?

Media interviewers set out to catch out interviewees, it's one way of making their name. Media interviews are like going in to a bear pit, you never know what to expect, and that's ok, but quite different from questioning crime suspects.

If your goal is to not allow people to deliberately offend others, that would be seeking to control and dominate them, something you claim to be against.

You are far too sensitive, I think. Domination and control of others is mostly about interfering with them or their lives, like telling people how they should dress, behave, live and more. If you want to insult folks then you will, but look out for those who might react in ways that could upset you back.

I don't use the N word, but it is important for society that I be known as the racist jerk (I likely would be) if I did go around using the said word. I'm not pro N word or pro jerk, I'm pro letting people show their true colors to others, which is the opposite of controlling or dominating them I would add.

Control and domination is mostly about stopping others from being what they want to be, such as criminalising LGBT people, or a particular race, or stopping women from voting......et al.

Society already doesn't approve of white people using the N word. No need to seek to control people that choose to show their true colors.
If society doesn't approve of purposely using the wrong pronouns, there is also no need to seek to control people that choose to show their true colors.

You seem to be fixated on the N word as an example.

I'm against those who would control and dominate. Are you?

Yep....

Thus the question: "Would you support (not approve) humans that would use the pronouns that 'they' see fit when addressing others?"

Not if they are setting out to provoke, incite, deliberately upset........no. People who shoot their mouths off at others, careless of hurt or offence, are morons, imo.

[Clownboat]

But you couldn't give me an example? OK.

"Would you support humans that would use the pronouns that 'they' see fit when addressing others?" No examples are needed and it is becoming apparent as to why you are not answering. Just pretend it happened both on accident and also on purpose that the wrong pronoun is being used.

But does anybody think that you are a jerk? What if a neighbour insisted on insulting you on sight? It might be better to learn how to get along......yes?

1st question: Not that I know of, but odds are... yes.
2nd: Then the neighbor is insulting me on sight. The answer to your question was in your question.
3rd: Getting along would be something I would prefer.
I don't know why you are asking such questions, but since you did, I thought I would answer just in case they will help further debate.

I'll guess that you've never investigated a pedophile in your life. Or can you tell me differently?

I have never investigated a pedophile. Once again, why are you asking such questions?

And if you are an investigator then you would never 'investigate pedophile's' but suspects....true?

Please try harder. Say it's an investigation piece on a known pedophile if it will help you stay on track. Your questions are off and give the impression that you are trying to distract in place of debating.
Should you be allowed to purposefully use the word pedophile during the interview, even if it causes offence and they would prefer that you use the term 'attracted to children' in place of 'pedophile'? Should you be punished if you purposefully continue to use the word pedophile? I mean, you might be causing offence on purpose after all and that seems to matter in your argument. Would you deserve the cell next door? I wouldn't think so myself, but again, I'm checking for consistency.

You are far too sensitive, I think.

Well that is just offensive! J/K
You obviously don't know me very well. Can you point to where you perceive me being sensitive? I'm literally arguing that we need to be able to offend our fellow humans, not that I am encouraging offence though, just noting the importance of it (to cut off your next off topic side question).

<Snipped some of your opinions about what domination and control is to you>

Control and domination is mostly about stopping others from being what they want to be, such as criminalising LGBT people, or a particular race, or stopping women from voting......et al.

And now we come full circle. Would you like to criminalize speech? For example, purposely using the wrong pronoun because a person is a jerk and wants to be a jerk. Would you seek to control and dominate such a persons speech?

You seem to be fixated on the N word as an example.

Obviously my words went right past you if you think I'm fixated on the N word. I trust the readers understood.

I'm against those who would control and dominate. Are you?

Yep....

Thus the question: "Would you support (not approve) humans that would use the pronouns that 'they' see fit when addressing others?"

Not if they are setting out to provoke, incite, deliberately upset........no. People who shoot their mouths off at others, careless of hurt or offence, are morons, imo.

I cannot support your quest to control and dominate others and you need to amend your "Yep" above to to a "No" as you would seek to control and dominate others. I don't approve of jerks or purposeful morons for that matter, but dictators are even more distasteful... for me anyway.

If I saw a jerk purposely using the wrong pronouns because they are trying to be hurtful, I would say something. If society (those around me) agree, we will likely make the jerk feel very small for being the jerk that they are and they will then be exposed. Perhaps they will even do some self reflecting to avoid it happening again in the future. I would not seek to put them in a cell for example because we have made being a jerk/moron a crime. That would be the greater evil IMO.