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]

Have you researched suicide statistics and causes?

Yes.

Have you researched 'size 8 suicides?

Not specifically, no. But I have personally caused two suicides in women who were size 8 or below. Both were below 18 BMI, but I don't think a woman can be attractive unless she is under 14.5. This is life-threateningly thin, but it is unbelievably hot.

The research I have done confirms that I'm at fault. Women, especially young women, are vulnerable to distress about their appearance and if they aren't made to feel beautiful and valuable they will kill themselves in not insignificant numbers.

So why does society want to force Brunumb to pretend he thinks a transgender woman is a woman, when he doesn't? The dictionary never had this kind of power before. People were free to use words as they liked. This has never been about science. It's about language. The word fat isn't a scientific term, and neither is the word woman.

Does it? I don't think that we field thought police, but there are laws against speech and actions which victimise, harass and incite crime.

Does simply having a different opinion about a word and who it applies to, really victimise, harass, or incite crime beyond the circular case that someone misgendered is a victim of a crime? If I followed someone around calling them fat, that would be harassment. If I simply think they are fat, that is my legally protected opinion. The people I think are fat, are not, medically speaking, fat. Some are dangerously thin. I have the right to use an unscientific term as I please. Yes, even when it causes the unthinkable. I'm not going to entertain the idea that it can't or doesn't, because that in itself - the idea that someone who is a member of a certain group cannot possibly suffer harm - is dismissive of people's rights.

When someone tells me, I have no right to call people fat if it harms them, when I actually suffer consequences for it, I will stop defending the right to use words hurtfully for others.

Some speech has always been policed (UK) as described above. But if transphobes or any other fanatics cannot control their speech and actions then they probably need some help. But they can think what they want.

That's not good enough. They should be able to say what they want. I benefit from this right, no one has ever ostracised me or cancelled me or cut me off from society, because they respect a right that I have, to speak freely, even if they disagree. I must therefore defend it for everyone, even if I disagree, or else I'm complicit in my own privilege.

No one has yet made a case that I shouldn't. No one has told me, outright, no, those people on the other side don't deserve the same rights you enjoy. When someone tells me this plainly, I'll stop fighting for them. When I keep hearing about equality, I will fight for it. For everyone. Even those who are wrong.

Where I live we don't use words like crippled, defective etc etc, we mostly use 'disabled'. You and I will have abilities and you and I will have disabilities, it's the same for everybody....... it's probably a good idea to become empathetic if you can.

But I just did use the word crippled. And nobody is excluding me from society. I probably shouldn't, but I can, and which word I use, at the end of the day, isn't that important. Language is a tool for communication. When it becomes a tool to enforce morality, and remove communication, it ceases to be language. It has become a religion, complete with dos, don'ts, ritual, sacredness, and dogma. What is important, is how I treat people. You didn't address the point about people with disabilities wanting to be called able-bodied and the ensuing confusion and rage when people find that confusing and end up getting called hateful, bigoted, and intolerant, for simply wanting to use a word in a way they can understand.

[brunumb]

Does simply having a different opinion about a word and who it applies to, really victimise, harass, or incite crime beyond the circular case that someone misgendered is a victim of a crime?

It is becoming a common practice, particularly among activists, to declare that some speech is violence. It is an absurd notion, but I believe that the intention behind it is that if we can be made to accept it as true, then it can be used to justify retaliation to such speech with actual physical violence. Anything to suppress the expression of a dissenting opinion.

[oldbadger]

Not specifically, no. But I have personally caused two suicides in women who were size 8 or below.

The research I have done confirms that I'm at fault.

Will you change anything about your speech or actions to them in future?

Does simply having a different opinion about a word and who it applies to, really victimise, harass, or incite crime beyond the circular case that someone misgendered is a victim of a crime? If I followed someone around calling them fat, that would be harassment. If I simply think they are fat, that is my legally protected opinion. The people I think are fat, are not, medically speaking, fat. Some are dangerously thin. I have the right to use an unscientific term as I please. Yes, even when it causes the unthinkable. I'm not going to entertain the idea that it can't or doesn't, because that in itself - the idea that someone who is a member of a certain group cannot possibly suffer harm - is dismissive of people's rights.

Your opinions are yours, but speech and actions can make a big difference where I live.

When someone tells me, I have no right to call people fat if it harms them, when I actually suffer consequences for it, I will stop defending the right to use words hurtfully for others.

What would you do if you your country introduced 'hate speech' laws?

That's not good enough. They should be able to say what they want. I benefit from this right, no one has ever ostracised me or cancelled me or cut me off from society, because they respect a right that I have, to speak freely, even if they disagree. I must therefore defend it for everyone, even if I disagree, or else I'm complicit in my own privilege.

Would you join a forum which bans you from insulting others whenever you like?

.......................................... You didn't address the point about people with disabilities wanting to be called able-bodied and the ensuing confusion and rage when people find that confusing and end up getting called hateful, bigoted, and intolerant, for simply wanting to use a word in a way they can understand.

You've got that wrong. Disabled people do not often want to be called or treated as 'able', they want their disabilities to be recognised because otherwise there won't be ramps, assistance dog entry permissions etc etc and all the rest of it. But you will probably get put right by them if your insult them.

[Purple Knight]

Not specifically, no. But I have personally caused two suicides in women who were size 8 or below.

The research I have done confirms that I'm at fault.

Will you change anything about your speech or actions to them in future?

No. I enjoy being able to have my own opinions and speak them freely even if that costs lives. I especially enjoy not having to lie to people. There has to be some point, even if you don't think this is it, at which "but, lives > all" doesn't apply because it would make the world suck so bad nobody would want to be alive.

Your opinions are yours, but speech and actions can make a big difference where I live.

And you don't realise anything is wrong with that because the enforced speech is largely the correct opinions. Imagine if wrong or even questionable opinions were enforced. Don't question religion. Don't say Black people are equal. Don't praise God because there isn't one. You'd quickly see that allowing someone to have an opinion, and allowing someone to speak that opinion, are the same in practice.

Nobody disputes that people have a right to be correct. Now, even if you believe people don't have a right to be wrong, we can't know for sure what even is wrong, unless we allow debate, which involves allowing the person with the incorrect opinion to state and defend it.

What would you do if you your country introduced 'hate speech' laws?

Follow them if they were fair and protected everyone equally. If they were hypocritical and stood against equality, or for special rights, I probably wouldn't. At very least I would defend people who violated unfair or hypocritical laws.

You've got that wrong. Disabled people do not often want to be called or treated as 'able', they want their disabilities to be recognised because otherwise there won't be ramps, assistance dog entry permissions etc etc and all the rest of it.

How have I got that wrong? I said that the reason there's no pushback on accommodating disabilities, and the reason doing so is easily cited as a pure positive, is because people who require it, do not behave in that manner - they don't want to be called able-bodied - nor do they want to overwrite anyone else's identity.

[brunumb]

What would you do if you your country introduced 'hate speech' laws?

Follow them if they were fair and protected everyone equally. If they were hypocritical and stood against equality, or for special rights, I probably wouldn't. At very least I would defend people who violated unfair or hypocritical laws.

It is already happening. The problem is that there has been no clear definition of hate speech which leaves the whole thing open to abuse.

Hate speech is a legal term with varied meaning. It has no single, consistent definition. It is defined by the Cambridge Dictionary as "public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation".[1] The Encyclopedia of the American Constitution states that hate speech is "usually thought to include communications of animosity or disparagement of an individual or a group on account of a group characteristic such as race, color, national origin, sex, disability, religion, or sexual orientation".[2] There is no single definition of what constitutes "hate" or "disparagement". Legal definitions of hate speech vary from country to country.

Transgender activists and extremists latch on to the notion and regard any questions relating to their ideology as encouraging violence and animosity so therefore it is hate speech. It is a ploy to shut down discussion that might highlight the absurdities and shortcomings of their arguments. If I express my opinion that non-binary is not a reality, then how is that an incitement to violence? How is it hate speech? We are heading towards a police state where the people in power decide what we can think and say. It's also applicable to political opinion. The government of the day can easily declare any public criticism of their actions or policies as hate speech and thereby shut down opposition.

Freedom of speech in Australia is under grave threat. Legislation currently in effect in Australia has a significant “chilling effect” on individuals and organisations discussing matters of significant public interest; in the long term this chilling effect threatens individual rights as well as social cohesion.

[Purple Knight]

If I express my opinion that non-binary is not a reality, then how is that an incitement to violence?

I don't see that it is, either.

I don't like the idea that incitement to violence should be a criminal act in the first place, but if it should, it must be in such a way that when hearing and trusting the aggressor's words, a logical person would react with violence. For example, you say someone has a gun, hurry and shoot him before he shoots us, or you say something like, that guy poisons nine hundred and twelve orphans every day and the government protects him, so if you just kill him it would save lives.

In both of those examples a reasonable person would choose violence upon trusting the words spoken. If I trusted you that non-binary is not a reality, I would just believe these people are harmless lunatics obsessed with their genitalia.

[brunumb]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #206]

Hate speech: "There are only two sexes and you can't change from one to the other".

Not Hate Speech: "I was gonna come here and be really fluffy and be really nice and say be really lovely and queer and gay - nah, if you see a terf, punch them in the [expletive] face".

The latter was from a transgender activist who has been cleared of intentionally encouraging the commission of an offense. Go figure.

Arielle Scarcella has a great new clip highlighting what she calls the five tier manipulation pyramid whereby gays and lesbians are no longer welcome in their own spaces.

[oldbadger]

Arielle Scarcella has a great new clip highlighting what she calls the five tier manipulation pyramid whereby gays and lesbians are no longer welcome in their own spaces.

The stuff that you watch!!!

[brunumb]

[Replying to oldbadger in post #208]

It is so enlightening.

This conversation is awesome:

[oldbadger]

[Replying to oldbadger in post #208]

It is so enlightening.

This conversation is awesome:

Sal Grover and 'Giggle':-

A social media app created for “females only” and its founder are facing criticism and accusations of transphobia and racism after trans women and women of colour reported being denied access by the facial recognition software.

Racist as well? OK.