What's new

Transgender issues

  • Context: Civil Rights 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Borg
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

This discussion centers on the societal and political challenges faced by transgender individuals, particularly in the context of recent U.S. administration policies. Key issues include the recommendation of 'exploratory therapy' for children with gender dysphoria by the HHS and the Supreme Court's decision to uphold the transgender military service ban. Participants express concerns about the oversimplification of gender identity, the conflation of gender with choice, and the impact of media portrayals on public perception. The conversation highlights the need for a nuanced understanding of gender beyond binary classifications.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of gender identity and expression
  • Familiarity with U.S. political and legal frameworks regarding LGBTQ+ rights
  • Knowledge of media influence on public perception of social issues
  • Awareness of psychological concepts related to gender dysphoria
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of the HHS's recommendation for 'exploratory therapy' on transgender youth
  • Examine the legal history and current status of transgender military service in the U.S.
  • Explore the impact of media representation on societal attitudes towards transgender individuals
  • Investigate psychological perspectives on gender identity development and dysphoria
USEFUL FOR

This discussion is beneficial for activists, policymakers, mental health professionals, and anyone interested in understanding the complexities of transgender issues in contemporary society.

Borg

Site Admin
Messages
243
Reaction score
254
Since the administration and the far right like to target transgender people, there should be a thread to cover the news related to the issues that they face both as trans and as targets of the administration.

I believe that many people have the mistaken belief (as I did) that being trans is always a choice. Some time ago, I posted an article from Scientific American about people who are born somewhere between male and female. I highly recommend this article to understand the issues that they face:
 
I believe, like most conflicts, this is a matter of control. When you have 2 sexes, the segmentation is clear and culture/society can be controlled. When you have a spectrum, it all breaks down.
 
I think many people have beliefs that are rooted in their religion. Also, based on what I've seen posted online, I get the impression many are wedded to a junior high-school understanding of sex: XX = female, XY = male, and they think that's the whole story. If an individual doesn't fit with that paradigm, it's not because of gender dysphoria; it's because they're mentally ill. There's no consideration of how complex the process of human development actually is and how it might not follow the typical route.

I believe that many people have the mistaken belief (as I did) that being trans is always a choice.
I feel there's some confusion because some people tend to conflate gender identity with things like being a tomboy. Just because a boy or a girl is interested in something that's typically associated with the opposite sex doesn't mean they're trans.

I've often heard the claim that some trans advocates say that a person can have a male gender identity one day and a female the next. When you hear something like that, it does make it really seem like it's a choice. I have to wonder, though, if this is some fringe view that anti-trans-ideology individuals latched onto to minimize trans issues, or if it's actually a widespread belief.

I believe, like most conflicts, this is a matter of control. When you have 2 sexes, the segmentation is clear and culture/society can be controlled. When you have a spectrum, it all breaks down.
I think it's just the latest culture war issue that Republicans have latched onto to gin up their base now that being gay is more widely considered acceptable among the population.
 

For more than two months, the Trump administration has been subject to a federal court order stopping it from cutting funding related to gender identity and the provision of gender-affirming care in response to President Donald Trump’s executive orders.

Lawyers for the federal government have repeatedly claimed in court filings that the administration has been complying with the order.

But new whistleblower records submitted in a lawsuit led by the Washington state attorney general appear to contradict the claim.
 
I believe, like most conflicts, this is a matter of control. When you have 2 sexes, the segmentation is clear and culture/society can be controlled. When you have a spectrum, it all breaks down.
I believe that this is also very true with the political system, it is much easier to decide a vote when you can only choose between mum or dad. Having other political choices makes voting a obligatory exercise of judgment.

Unfortunately this is not the era of judgment or reasoning. It's much easier to "dumb down" the whole election process and follow "influencers" (the concept itself gives me the creeps) than trying to build up your own criteria with the unfortunate results already observed.

Anyway I digress. Please note this is the opinion of an ex-US resident with the perspective of a "hovering foreigner".

Have a good day everyone.
 
Attacks from HHS:
The disturbing reason HHS is recommending 'exploratory therapy' for kids with gender dysphoria

And the Pentagon:
Supreme Court lets transgender military service ban take effect while litigation continues
It's unbelievable how many times every single court rules one way and the MAGA wing of SCOTUS rules another.
The trans in the military are probably not, as would be most of the community, the same as the screaming ' I don't hear you', ' I'm a woman, and your a bigot' agitators in the business of promoting a cause they are not part of. Just like woke got taken over by as they say 'white rich cat ladies in the living room'. The agitators a lot of times do not have anything to lose, or gain, as the situation doesn't affect them directly, and if it does they have a soft cushion to fall back on. They never should have allowed the T to ne added to the LGB community. Being part of a larger group, strength in numbers did not paying off.
Of course that is some exaggeration.
But I do think, being such a life changing event, most trans just want to get on living, and be, you know, normal.
The military trans are a casualty.
What is remembered is not the fitting into society that trans can do, and not with having a decent conversation, but the news cringy exploitive exposures.
Giant 54 DDD's in a school machine shop, non compromising discussions with the interviewee claiming ' I don't feel safe with you questions'', the evident overreaction of the GB Supreme Court verifying that 'woman' in a British law, one and only one law, means 'biological woman', the BS about being raped in a bathroom, etc, etc. These are all media exposure - the media supposedly trans pro , but undermining the 'cause' so to speak.
Filthy media in this regard. If ever there was fake news, this is it. Did they ever go out and show an active trans in line of duty to give a more balanced picture. Nope, only the activist junk, portraying the general trans ( and supporters ) as simple minded, erratic, fluffy, confused . unworthy of reliability. Of course trans have identity problems, but it sure does take a whole lot of courage to make a decision to throw away the safe box society places around the man/woman category for the volnerability.

Nuff ranting.
One more.
Trans in sport would be another rant, where the agencies themselves dropped the ball, by their uncompromising positions, labelling questioniers as trans phobic, bigots, rendering needless sanctions.
Junk decisions and labelling.
 
Here is an example of pushing the panic button on trans issues.
A really bizarre proposed bill Texas Republicans are pushing would prohibit "non-human behaviors" in school - from State Rep. Stan Gerdes, called Forbidding Unlawful Representation of Roleplaying in Education (FURRIES) Act.
Based on rumours of 'liter boxes' being supplied in classroom for a child identifying as a 'furry', or animal, the proposed bill shows once again the Republican MAGA mindset capable of 'truth distortion', the inability of being able to sort 'fake' from reality, and the dysfunctional ensuing response.

What the bill proposes is a curb on imagination and playing out, something children do and enjoy all for fun.
This really is wicked.

'Absolute nonsense': Columnist slams GOP over bill to ban 'playing dress-up' in schools​

 
Here is an example of pushing the panic button on trans issues.
A really bizarre proposed bill Texas Republicans are pushing would prohibit "non-human behaviors" in school - from State Rep. Stan Gerdes, called Forbidding Unlawful Representation of Roleplaying in Education (FURRIES) Act.
Based on rumours of 'liter boxes' being supplied in classroom for a child identifying as a 'furry', or animal, the proposed bill shows once again the Republican MAGA mindset capable of 'truth distortion', the inability of being able to sort 'fake' from reality, and the dysfunctional ensuing response.

What the bill proposes is a curb on imagination and playing out, something children do and enjoy all for fun.
This really is wicked.

'Absolute nonsense': Columnist slams GOP over bill to ban 'playing dress-up' in schools​

But what about Davy Crockett?

davy-crockett.gif
 
What the bill proposes is a curb on imagination and playing out, something children do and enjoy all for fun.
This really is wicked.
Agreed, we're heading for a North Korean style culture where imagination, creativity and individualism is phased out. It's all about control.
 
I believe that many people have the mistaken belief (as I did) that being trans is always a choice.
Just like the gay argument, is it nature or is it choice?

The answer doesn't actually matter. (scientifically it may have some interest, but socially, no relevance at all)
So what if it is nature, so what if it is a choice?

Playing soccer isn't natural, playing cards isn't natural, typing away on a keyboard isn't natural. Hell, even wearing clothes isn't natural.

My answer to it all is, so what?

What value do we get from determining whether a person was born gay, or born trans vs whether they became gay or trans at some later point in their life.

Myself, I was born with the ability to speak, I developed that skill later in life. So what? Does this mean I should give up speaking?
Should we all throw away our clothes and go back into the bush and swing from the trees? Should we give up cooking, give up talking, and instead, beat our chests and squawk?

Why are we so concerned about whether a person is gay or trans and whether they were born that way or just simply chose to be that way? So What!?
 
The thing I don't get about USA politics is that the USA right keep blaming the Democrats for Transgenderism (in sports, in schools, in medical practice).

But as far as I understand it, the Sporting bodies are who decides on what division various participants can participate in (this has nothing to do with government), schools aren't teaching kids how to be gay or trans, they are however enforcing anti bullying and any harassment policies and therefore are creating an environment where children can safely go to learn academic stuff. And the medical experts and authorities are determining what are safe and recommended treatments that can be offered to patients that want them, (not government).
 
Just like the gay argument, is it nature or is it choice?

The answer doesn't actually matter. (scientifically it may have some interest, but socially, no relevance at all)
So what if it is nature, so what if it is a choice?

Playing soccer isn't natural, playing cards isn't natural, typing away on a keyboard isn't natural. Hell, even wearing clothes isn't natural.

My answer to it all is, so what?

What value do we get from determining whether a person was born gay, or born trans vs whether they became gay or trans at some later point in their life.

Myself, I was born with the ability to speak, I developed that skill later in life. So what? Does this mean I should give up speaking?
Should we all throw away our clothes and go back into the bush and swing from the trees? Should we give up cooking, give up talking, and instead, beat our chests and squawk?

Why are we so concerned about whether a person is gay or trans and whether they were born that way or just simply chose to be that way? So What!?
They are concerned probably because they don't have a life and it worries them somebody else has one.

They'd better live and let live!
 
Why are we so concerned about whether a person is gay or trans and whether they were born that way or just simply chose to be that way? So What!?
What about people:
  • speeding
  • BASE jumping,
  • doing drugs,
  • who are polygamous,
  • who are incestuous,
  • who are pedophiles,
  • who are serial killers?
It's not about whether you were born a certain way or made certain choices, but rather where you draw the line between Good and Evil. THIS is the real problematic personal choice: it is all based on our personal fears and misunderstandings. We will never have a full consensus about where the line is.

Perhaps the problem lies in the law's attempt to draw that line. Is there such a thing as Good and Evil? When a society is not trusting its citizens to do the right thing, what does it say about those citizens and this society? Aren't the citizens the product of this society?

Laws are always about a small group trying to control a bigger group to calm their own fears.

I would much prefer a different approach where people care about others and ask themselves why one would want to stray away from society or, worst, want to hurt it, a society that is supposed to be beneficial to them. Maybe it's not so beneficial for them after all. What do I owe to others, not what others owe to me.

Society's intrusion into private lives should be questioned much more than what individuals are doing right or wrong.
 
It is probably as much of a choice as anything else is (see Robert Sapolsky's book, Determined, for something that approaches my own thoughts on *that* particular matter).

The closest I can get to any sort of consideration of "good" and "evil" these days is when applying Dan Dennett's intentional stance, which is really just a method of prediction. "Good" and "evil" arise out of the application of the intentional stance once you have ascribed putatitative beliefs and desires to the object being examined. This underscores what I think is an essential element which is the "for who". Any proposed action is only good or bad relative to the predicted trajectory of the object with respect to the teleology that we have projected onto it.

Michael Levin has, in a sense, extended and attempted to formalize elements of the intentional stance in his "Technological Approach to Mind Everywhere."

Bringing the matter back to the trans issue...

Under determinism, whether someone 'chooses' their gender identity is incoherent. The question dissolves. Under the intentional stance, 'good' or 'evil' of transition depends entirely on whose teleology we're tracking. If we ascribe agency to trans individuals (as TAME would suggest is useful when examining *any* system exhibiting goal-directed behavior toward coherent self-states), then transition is 'good' relative to the identified trajectory toward reduced dysphoria and stable identity. The burden then shifts: what goal-structure justifies overriding that agency? Most objections fail to articulate one beyond 'makes observers uncomfortable'. This isn't a harm-based framework, just an appeal to normative inertia
 
It's not about whether you were born a certain way or made certain choices, but rather where you draw the line between Good and Evil.

In my opinion, leave the determination of good vs evil upto the various religious groups. Don't codify it into law. Religious group A can call gays evil if they want, religious group can call gays good if they want, people can choose to listen to whomever they want.

BUT, if people choose to harrass, harm or discriminate, then and only then does govt need to get involved. Govt need to ensure that society is safe. Harrassment, harm and discrimination makes society unsafe, especially for minorities, so govt needs to intervene.
Whether a group of people is labelled as good or evil, has nothing to do with government.

Society's intrusion into private lives should be questioned much more than what individuals are doing right or wrong.
We don't need a nanny state, govt needs to have limits on their power. Rather than defining human rights, we need to define specific purpose for government, when govt go beyond their purpose then the courts need to reign them in and quash those laws that go beyond the power/purpose of government.
 
BUT, if people choose to harrass, harm or discriminate, then and only then does govt need to get involved. Govt need to ensure that society is safe. Harrassment, harm and discrimination makes society unsafe, especially for minorities, so govt needs to intervene.
Once you accept that rhetoric to be valid, both sides of any conflict of opinions can use it:
https://thecatalystnews.com/2025/10/10/maga-victimhood-and-the-threat-of-right-wing-unity/ said:
Identity politics are fundamentally about a sense of exclusion based on an identity that one considers significant. For many years, this has meant a politics centered around race, gender and sexuality for Democrats. The right, however, has something different in mind. In calling on the language of the ‘radical left crackdown’ on what conservatives see as traditional American culture—Christian values, patriarchal gender norms and the like—the right has claimed a new sense of exclusion, that of the alienated conservative, the true believer punished for trying to live the way he knows is correct. This right-wing persecution narrative has a powerful foothold in contemporary conservative discourse; in other words, victimhood is no longer solely the realm of liberals.


Conservative media outlets such as Fox News have been telling a story that has grown more and more mainstream in recent years: some shadowy, liberal establishment seeks to stamp out any vestiges of traditional American values, as well as the conservative voices that advocate for them. A 2025 poll from the Pew Research Center showed that 55% of people categorized as Republican or Republican-leaning believe that white people face some discrimination, with 22% stating that whites faced “a lot” of discrimination. Similarly, 57% believed that our society discriminated against Evangelical Christians. In comparison, 15% of the same group said that Black people faced “a lot” of discrimination.


Many Republicans, including our President, argue that conservative speech is under attack, with repression in the name of political correctness being the primary culprit; Trump’s invocation of the “fake news media” has been a constant since his first term in office. Furthermore, the American economic success that many Republicans—both legitimately and illegitimately—identify with is subject to endless encroachment by an ever-growing welfare state that rewards laziness. Another contributing factor to right-wing fear is the notion that equal rights are a zero-sum game, meaning that a gain for minoritized groups is predicated on a loss for the majority. Under this view, Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) and other attempts at equity pose a blatant risk to conservatives who enjoy privileged identities.


What conservative victimhood necessitates is the formation and consolidation of politics as identity. Unlike liberals, who focus on racial, gender or class identity, for conservatives, political viewpoint is the identity. In a world where technology is siloing people into increasingly niche echo chambers of political thought, our politics have become who we are. The two are no longer separate or distinct, and an attack on one is irrefutably an attack on the other.
Donald Trump is intervening by using the government to protect people who are harassed, harmed and discriminated. For right-wing people, Charlie Kirk's assassination just prove the need for this.

No matter who we are, we are always the victim.
 
Donald Trump is intervening by using the government to protect people who are harassed, harmed and discriminated. For right-wing people, Charlie Kirk's assassination just prove the need for this.

No matter who we are, we are always the victim.
The USA shouldn't tolerate murder. The murderer of Charlie Kirk should go through the legal justice system and should probably be found guilty of murder and probably be locked up to keep society safe and to show that murder has consequences.

I'm not sure if Charlie was harassed or discriminated against though. Although he probably did get death threats and that was harassment, people sending death threats should face judgment of law and potential criminal consequences.
 
Since the administration and the far right like to target transgender people, there should be a thread to cover the news related to the issues that they face both as trans and as targets of the administration.

I believe that many people have the mistaken belief (as I did) that being trans is always a choice. Some time ago, I posted an article from Scientific American about people who are born somewhere between male and female. I highly recommend this article to understand the issues that they face:
I have never been under the impression that one's perceived gender or sexuality is a "choice". Who would choose to a be pedophile, a necrophile, a transsexual or an asexual (and I haven't even begun to mention people's various fetishes), just to name a few? Mind you, I'm not lopping them together in any negative sense. Just pointing out, that given the choice, wouldn't most people "choose" to be cis-gender? With all the push-back and adversity such people have to overcome it seems pretty obvious to me they don't do it to cheese their parents off. For a lot of people it's truly a matter of life and death.

And apropos not much. Just for the record, I hate the expression "he chose to take his own life". Unless you're at then end of your life and riddled with disease noone "chooses" suicide. Sorry for the rant.
 
[...]
I've often heard the claim that some trans advocates say that a person can have a male gender identity one day and a female the next. When you hear something like that, it does make it really seem like it's a choice. I have to wonder, though, if this is some fringe view that anti-trans-ideology individuals latched onto to minimize trans issues, or if it's actually a widespread belief.

This sounds to me more like a confused teenager who haven't figured it out yet.
 
This sounds to me more like a confused teenager who haven't figured it out yet.
That's called gender questioning, which is distinct from gender fluidity.


Gender fluidity is different from gender-questioning, a process in which people explore their gender in order to find their true gender identity and adjust their gender expression accordingly. Gender fluidity continues throughout lives of genderfluid people.
 
I've often heard the claim that some trans advocates say that a person can have a male gender identity one day and a female the next. When you hear something like that, it does make it really seem like it's a choice.
Have you heard of dissociative identity disorder (DID), aka split personality?
It is real.


Regarding gender identity, I wonder how many people have suffered through life not feeling right because they were not allowed to explore that feeling due to societal taboos? Those who say one chooses to be gay, or male or female, are just plain ignorant and unwilling to ask the question, Why do some question their gender identity? Humans are way more than what they appear to be. The variation in physical and mental traits is natural, notwithstanding what the Bible might suggest.


And apropos not much. Just for the record, I hate the expression "he chose to take his own life". Unless you're at then end of your life and riddled with disease noone "chooses" suicide.


Regarding suicide, why is suicide a choice when a person is in physical pain, but not a choice if they are in mental pain?
 
Have you heard of dissociative identity disorder (DID), aka split personality?
It is real.


Regarding gender identity, I wonder how many people have suffered through life not feeling right because they were not allowed to explore that feeling due to societal taboos? Those who say one chooses to be gay, or male or female, are just plain ignorant and unwilling to ask the question, Why do some question their gender identity? Humans are way more than what they appear to be. The variation in physical and mental traits is natural, notwithstanding what the Bible might suggest.





Regarding suicide, why is suicide a choice when a person is in physical pain, but not a choice if they are in mental pain?

I just don't like the term "choose" in regard to suicide. Most people are, I believe, driven to that "solution". Seldom is it a question of free choice.
 
That's called gender questioning, which is distinct from gender fluidity.

I can't understand any of this stuff.
How does it feel to be a woman or man? What is the difference between feeling like a woman rather than a man? I have no idea.

BUT,
In my view, it is best to give people respect. If they want to be called by a certain name or set of pronouns, then yes, I'm happy to address them that way.
I don't have to understand this stuff in order to treat people with respect.
 
I love this thread. This discussion shows how difficult it is to understand what other people are going through, and how difficult it is to restrain ourselves to impose our views on them until we are in agreement.

I hear you. Especially when you've reached my age (50), some of what young people take for granted in ordinary conversation has me completely baffled. I try, but it's difficult resetting so much bigoted baggage.
 
Recently I read (I thank Creation for not learning this during conversation!) that the word "mulatto" is just as bad as the word "n....."!!!

EDIT: And sorry for using it anyway, but I had to use the word to be able to discuss it.
 

Liberal Democracy Values

  • Free and Fair Elections
  • Rule of Law
  • Separation of Powers & Checks and Balances
  • Protection of Civil Liberties and Human Rights
  • Pluralism & Political Competition
  • Independent Media & Free Press
  • Open Civil Society

Community Values

  • Civility
  • Productivity
  • Good Faith Debate
  • Evidence Based Debate
  • Transparency
  • Integrity

Community Motto

"It is the responsibility of intellectuals to speak the truth and expose lies." - Noam Chomsky
Back
Top