Male to female to non-binary to male again

[luckynumbah7]

Japan law requires that if you want to legally change your gender you have to actually do actually to physically "change" your gender.
The lawyer for the person who is now legally a woman but who wants to be reclassified as a man argues that:

"It is unthinkable in this day and time that the law requires a sex-change operation to change gender."

O tempora o mores!

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/25/asia/japan-supreme-court-trans-intl/index.html

Either you didn't read the link or you're pretending that 'gender change' is code for 'sterilized'. You sterile? No? Didn't think so.

Uterus removal (Japan goes by the removal of organs) is known to involve risks (one of which is incontinence at a rate that's entirely too high for me to be comfortable with since the uterus does seem to have more than just the one job), while the results of the procedure itself aren't actually visible to the eye.

(Well, known-ish, the best studies are from other countries, health studies from 'Murica that I'm familiar with have a nasty habit of discounting reproductive health issues that don't have dangly bits attached.)

That's not a gender change, that's just you being an asshole because you can be.

 

[Latimer]

My interpretation of the lawyer's statement, as well as the reaction of transgender activists, Human Rights Watch, etc., etc. to the Supreme Court ruling is that there be absolutely no requirement for legally changing one's gender other than a proceeding of some sort in which one petitions to record a gender change, akin to changing one's name. This is madness, worthy of Lewis Carroll:

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all."

(This passage was used in Britain by Lord Atkin in his dissenting judgement in the seminal case Liversidge v. Anderson (1942), where he protested about the distortion of a statute by the majority of the House of Lords.[26] It also became a popular citation in United States legal opinions, appearing in 250 judicial decisions in the Westlaw database as of 19 April 2008, including two Supreme Court cases (TVA v. Hill and Zschernig v. Miller).[27])

Source Link: In Through the Looking-Glass [Wiki]

So yes, I believe there need to be requirements. To be classified as male while physically functioning as a woman is absurd on its face. To be classified as a female while physically functioning as a male is absurd on its face. The stuff of satire.

 

[luckynumbah7]

Oh please. Shupe got, from all appearances, rather small tits and nothing else after ceasing. Skin changes & fat redistribution et al shifts back after hormones are stopped. And if I wanted to be real crass, with his build he would've had those tits in another decade with no lieing on his part anyway.

What he's really left with is embarrassment. I suspect his giant (albeit probably fragile) ego can't handle it.

He didn't even finish puberty. For that matter, he barely started it - it usually takes at least 2 or 3 years to start seeming like a middling teenager, let alone the decade needed to become an adult that looks their age. (Which is when hrt has done all its gonna)

 

[SeaCore]

My interpretation of the lawyer's statement, as well as the reaction of transgender activists, Human Rights Watch, etc., etc. to the Supreme Court ruling is that there be absolutely no requirement for legally changing one's gender other than a proceeding of some sort in which one petitions to record a gender change, akin to changing one's name.

No one said that. No one said that there shouldn't be any requirement. They're saying surgery shouldn't be the requirement. Specifically they're saying sterilization should not be a requirement. They're not objecting to the requirement of a diagnosis of Gender Identity Disorder. Some people might would object to that too, but I think that gets into something else namely--

akin to changing one's name

Why is that a problem to you? Maybe this would be helpful, could you explain to me why we have a gender marker on our IDs in the first place? I honestly don't see a need for one, but maybe I'm missing something.

 

[rareboy]

As usual, it is interesting to see how rattled this makes some guys.

It is like transexuals are a personal affront for these fragile males.

 

[SeaCore]

As usual, it is interesting to see how rattled this makes some guys.

It is like transexuals are a personal affront for these fragile males.

I would really appreciate it if you didn't take jabs at people. It makes engaging the underlying ideas so much harder because it tends to draw focus away from discussing that and towards hurling insults back or venting frustrations wholesale.

You of course don't have to but if constructive conversations are going to be possible and you want them to be possible we need to not do stuff like that. And that applies to everyone.

I'd also like to say, I don't think this necessarily has to have anything to do with 'fragile masculinity'.

 

[luckynumbah7]

As usual, it is interesting to see how rattled this makes some guys.

It is like transexuals are a personal affront for these fragile males.

Oh, alas, not just men. Tho funny you should mention personal affront. Does look an awful lot like an insistence of 'How dare people choose something I wouldn't do, they must be receiving ....a society-wide pressure to transition, yeah, that's it!" type of thing.

https://medium.com/@juliaserano/det...derstanding-transgender-children-993b7342946e

Link not limited to kids, and there's a couple of reference pages theatre also decent. I think she could've gone more in depth on the 80% bit, didn't nip that in the bud strongly enough for my liking. With the way these views are framed the words need to be bricks, not feathers.

 

[rareboy]

We have had a stream of these inherently anti-trans threads started by the same people over the years.

Do you really think that you are going to convince them to change their minds and that they will suddenly stop trans-bashing on JUB?

 

[luckynumbah7]

We have had a stream of these inherently anti-trans threads started by the same people over the years.

Do you really think that you are going to convince them to change their minds and that they will suddenly stop trans-bashing on JUB?

No. Jub is tiny. Jub is miniscule. Jub is actually damn-near nonexistent on this radar for trans-bashing - we're only limited to verbal, here, after all - 'real life' is a more immediate concern; jub's member's actions are more an example of what tends to occur.

It isn't their minds I'm trying to change, as their opinions aren't based on anything factual, let alone anything resembling reality. I've found, that when someone bases their view entirely on 'faith', an argument intended to change their opinion is a migraine-inducing, useless endeavor. That said, still put up the relevant info anyway.

Alls I'm doing is playing Wack-A-Bigot using very small words (and very simple concepts). Call the reasons-for a third catharsis, a third severe irritance and a third bemusement. Because I know that while there's only a couple people posting the trans bashing, there's absolute oodles of society waiting in the wings that haven't the spine to publicly say they agree with their ...'unsung heroes' when they remember a trans person is 'in the room'. Part of that is because they want to both be good people by acknowledging a medical reality and also conform to their internal biases by not acknowledging medical reality - which leaves them in the pickle of ''it must be so rare that I'd never meet one ....so you can't exist here with me, but I can't say that because someone must exist somewhere ....but it can't be anyone in my family!"

One of my sisters made an error regarding deliberate pronoun misuse on a video clip a few days ago, the difference being that I made damn sure I raised her to have a spine so she wasn't quiet about it. The difference being, neither was I, and she isn't stupid enough by far to go about denying her own obviously two-faced behavior. So she went quiet. Which for her, means mulling things over.

Just one reason why these threads might get so quiet with so few posters when only 'a couple people' make trans bashing threads.*

The cissexism I'd consider much more problematic, actually. That is rampant here, but that's rampant everywhere.

*Well, it would be if the boards had more members. As it stands I'm ....not entirely sure how many regulars actually visit hot topics, here.

 

[SeaCore]

We have had a stream of these inherently anti-trans threads started by the same people over the years.

Do you really think that you are going to convince them to change their minds and that they will suddenly stop trans-bashing on JUB?

Do I think I could change their minds? Yes, yes I do. I don't believe I'll turn their beliefs around entirely but if I can point out one thing that gives them pause; or they can give me one thing to give me pause, then I'd consider that conversation worth it.

And you don't know who else is paying attention Rare. As far as I see it, jabs do absolutely nothing while attempting to earnestly engage has the capacity to do something.

 

[luckynumbah7]

Do I think I could change their minds? Yes, yes I do. I don't believe I'll turn their beliefs around entirely but if I can point out one thing that gives them pause; or they can give me one thing to give me pause, then I'd consider that conversation worth it.

And you don't know who else is paying attention Rare. As far as I see it, jabs do absolutely nothing while attempting to earnestly engage has the capacity to do something.

I'd think that depends on the framing of the views you're earnestly trying to engage with though.

 

[luckynumbah7]

I'd think that depends on the framing of the views you're earnestly trying to engage with though.

Though I might amend that to personally-speaking. I refuse to sacrifice my mental health putting up with the constant spew in the incredibly unlikely event a hardcore concern troll might, in a far-flung future date, change their mind. I would rather lay out the rebuttal arguments about why they're clearly mistaken and let possible lurkers mull on things themselves.

 

[opinterph]

I question the news source. It seems to be a "conservative" website that I fear is mere Trumpism.

The story is published in an obviously anti-lgbtq right wing site with a naked agenda.

The Daily Signal is published by conservative think tank The Heritage Foundation.

 

[opinterph]

Do you really think that you are going to convince them to change their minds and that they will suddenly stop trans-bashing on JUB?

Not everyone who reads this forum maintains a member account here.

 

[opinterph]

Question: how is this hate crime?

Better question: How does the linked article relate to the topic introduced in the opening post?

 

[Latimer]

From Andrew Sullivan's weekly blog in NY Magazine: "

the maximalist claims of gender theorists abolish critical biological distinctions between men and women--which in turn make it harder to protect those communities built around all-male or all-female identity.

[Quoted Text: Truncated] © 2019, New York Media LLC.

The End of Gay Culture, Again Intelligencer; April 12, 2019)

"

It follows commentary on white identity and Pope Benedict.

 

[luckynumbah7]

"A couple of observations about the impact of the trans revolution within the gay and lesbian world. Last week saw a historic first: a lesbian testifying in Congress against a legislative pillar of the “LGBTQ” movement. The seemingly unflappable Julie Beck, a lesbian and former law and policy co-chair for Baltimore City’s LGBTQ Commission, made the case that the Equality Act — which I wrote about in February — goes too far: “The authors of this bill have done a lot of work to make it sound like gender identity is well understood and has been around for a long time, but it’s a new concept that can only ever refer to stereotypes and unverifiable claims.” The maximalist claims of critical gender and queer theorists abolish critical biological distinctions between men and women — which in turn make it harder to protect those communities built around all-male or all-female identity."

Bolded mine. Which is irony, because ....seems to me other people have been insisting that never the two shall twine has been an insistence for many individuals for quite a while. Otherwise you wouldn't be here, stirring pots.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1d9KKqP9IHa5ZxU84a_Jf0vIoAh7e8nj_lCW27KbYBh0/edit?pli=1#gid=0

 

[pat grimshaw]

^
Here is a nice picture of James Clifford Shupe—

 

[Zeno Lorea]

Although I find the story interesting and wish Jamie Shute well in his life, I question the news source. It seems to be a "conservative" website that I fear is mere Trumpism.

Conservative? Downright reactionary. Longing for that good old 18th century, before these liberal Enlightenment things took over. I'm not going to believe a word of what they stream. Might as well read Mein Kampf.

 

[pat grimshaw]

.. I'm not going to believe a word of what they stream. ...

But do you disbelieve the many video interviews where James Clifford Shupe speaks with his own words?