flametitan

None taken. It’s always funny to see how much drama I can cause by merely existing.

It’s a power I need to learn to control.

Handman said:

Interesting. This is all beyond my comprehension, I’m just a simple man. But you have my support nonetheless. I appreciate you taking the time to explain your perspective.

Oh definitely! I’ve been meaning to start a thread specific to this stuff, in the vein of the “Interrogate the X!” threads that popped up a while back.

moviefreakedmind said:

I’m in favor of your transition and I do validate it. I was pointing out to him why surgery isn’t what determines someone’s gender.

Oh definitely. Like I said, I get that you were on my side. I was mostly trying to politely tell you that your phrasing wasn’t the best way of going about it. The aspect of cost was more of the crux, rather than the, “never be a biological man or woman,” angle.

moviefreakedmind said:

Handman said:

I don’t think it’s shocking for me to say that I am a total dumbass when it comes to this kind of thing, but since I have the opportunity, I’ll ask. Why is requiring surgery to declare yourself a male or female a bad thing? From my perspective, it seems like the logical thing to do, if a man is defined as being, you know, biologically a man, and a woman the same. I don’t mean to be provocative, I’m just genuinely curious.

Nothing can make a biological man a biological woman or vice versa, and for that reason (as well as for cost and other restrictions), a lot of transgenders aren’t interested in or able to go through such invasive and expensive surgeries. That’s why it’s about identifying as one gender or the other, not whether or not someone wants or can afford those surgeries.

I get that you’re trying to help my point, but…

That phrase hurts. It’s a phrase used by those who oppose my transition to invalidate it and try to convince me to stop. More than that, it’s one of the deepest dreads I have, the very thing that drives many other trans people to suicide. The fear that no matter what we do, in the end it’s all meaningless, because it’ll just not matter; we’ll never really be the gender we identify with.

Would it be too much to try to avoid that turn of phrase in the future? (also technically “Transgenders,” isn’t really a correct way of referring to trans people; it’s an adjective, not a noun.)

Handman said:

I don’t think it’s shocking for me to say that I am a total dumbass when it comes to this kind of thing, but since I have the opportunity, I’ll ask. Why is requiring surgery to declare yourself a male or female a bad thing? From my perspective, it seems like the logical thing to do, if a man is defined as being, you know, biologically a man, and a woman the same. I don’t mean to be provocative, I’m just genuinely curious.

TL;DR: It’s an expensive and laborious process with a lot of checks and balances to keep it from being easily accessible, while some trans people don’t need it to feel comfortable, but do need the legal system to acknowledge them as their preferred gender.

For a lot of trans people it is a concern they want dealt with, but not for all of us. Some of us don’t necessarily feel strongly one way or another about our genitalia. Some might actually like the apparent mismatch. I don’t have hard statistics on this front to say how many of each category exists, though; I just know from knowing other trans people that it’s a wide pool of what needs to be done in order to feel comfortable in our bodies.
For some of us, however, it’s a low priority on the to-do list compared to everything else we need in order to be seen as our preferred gender identity. Unless you intend to get in bed with them, what’s between your legs isn’t going to be how people judge you, so much as what’s on your ID, how your face looks, body shape, etc…

Not only that, but there’s a lot more gatekeeping with bottom surgery than with the other steps in transition (though stuff like laser and facial feminization surgery will often end up being classified as “cosmetic,” and not be covered by insurance.) Currently, the Standards of Care published by WPATH puts it at being forced to wait at least a year after beginning HRT in order to qualify. Depending on where you live, you also have to be out and presenting as your preferred gender for a year before you’re allowed HRT, which is… dangerous. Now, my area isn’t like this, but I still had to wait an annoyingly long time between first talking to a psychiatrist and being prescribed hormones, because of some other dumb red tape like requiring at least two psychs to sign off on your papers in a province where if you don’t live in the city everything’s a multi-hour drive.
Luckily on that front, there’s been “informed consent” clinics popping up, which are more about telling you what the effects and side effects of the hormones are without judging how “trans you are,” and therefore skips a lot of the stress and anxiety on that front. However, the year between starting HRT and being able to procure surgery is still part of the global Standards of Care for transgender individuals.

Oh, and on that part about how things like FFS and laser being cosmetic. Guess what? Insurance companies might not necessarily cover bottom surgery anyway, so you’re SOL if you can’t afford to get it done yourself. Again, in my part of Canada, it sounds like it might be part of our healthcare plan, assuming you fly to Montreal (the other end of the country from me) to get it done, but I’m not sure if they cover the flight expenses.

chyron8472 said:

flametitan said:

I know there’s one state in the US where it’s just, “No, nothing will let you legally change the gender you’re registered as.”

You got me curious, so I looked it up. https://transgenderlawcenter.org/resources/id/state-by-state-overview-changing-gender-markers-on-birth-certificates

The answer is: Tennessee.

Yep. I knew someone brought up in the place where I learned about this article that they happened to live in the one place in America where that was in effect, but I forgot the name. Thanks for finding it; I know where to avoid if I visit America.

chyron8472 said:

flametitan said:

chyron8472 said:

flametitan said:

Mrebo said:

Sounds like he or his doctor could be on the hook for fraud…and yet what should the legal standard be for determining gender identity?

Just… prosecute him for fraud and perjury. We don’t need to bring the standards up to where they were previously. We shouldn’t have to jump through hoops in order to be seen under the law and by our peers as ourselves.

Edit: This is more about the strange biases in auto insurance (though there’s good rationale), but throwing us under the bus (and giving ammunition to bigots) is not a good way of going about it.

Generally I think prosecuting him for fraud is what would or will happen. However, there is a point to be made regarding making legal gender status less arbitrary, especially if metrics or statistics businesses use depend on data relevant to gender being accurate.

Ok, I don’t want to turn this into a debate, not in this thread.

But I have to ask: What do you mean by, “making legal gender status less arbitrary?”

I’m not sure how to redefine that. If gender status is fluid or arbitrary, that doesn’t necessarily make it easy to arbitrate cases of fraud or deceit regarding what people report their gender to be. I’m not saying there need to be more hoops. I don’t even know what hoops there are. I guess I’m saying there is a valid argument to have hoops and for them to be well-defined.

Often there doesn’t even need to be concrete legislation (regarding said hoops) where caselaw in the courts establish a precedent for what they consider fraud and what they don’t. So there’s also a legal argument against the need for additional hoops.

I really was making no judgment about whether gender was too easy or hard to change.

Alright then. I think I see where you’re coming from. Obviously I have a stronger stance on it, but when stuff like this happens, it’s hard to justify my position.

As far as pre-existing hoops go, it varies from place to place. I’ve been waiting on finding work before I go through the legal aspects of transition, so most of my knowledge of the hoops are in regards to the medical aspects in my area. That being said, the legal hoops tend to vary from nearly none at all, to doctor’s note, to requiring surgery. I know there’s one state in the US where it’s just, “No, nothing will let you legally change the gender you’re registered as.”

The medical hoops, on the other hand, wow. I’m legitimately surprised he was able to get that Doctor’s note so easily. Most of us have to spend months trying to prove ourselves as, “really trans.”

chyron8472 said:

flametitan said:

Mrebo said:

Sounds like he or his doctor could be on the hook for fraud…and yet what should the legal standard be for determining gender identity?

Just… prosecute him for fraud and perjury. We don’t need to bring the standards up to where they were previously. We shouldn’t have to jump through hoops in order to be seen under the law and by our peers as ourselves.

Edit: This is more about the strange biases in auto insurance (though there’s good rationale), but throwing us under the bus (and giving ammunition to bigots) is not a good way of going about it.

Generally I think prosecuting him for fraud is what would or will happen. However, there is a point to be made regarding making legal gender status less arbitrary, especially if metrics or statistics businesses use depend on data relevant to gender being accurate.

Ok, I don’t want to turn this into a debate, not in this thread.

But I have to ask: What do you mean by, “making legal gender status less arbitrary?” If it means what I think you mean (make more hoops to jump through to get a legal change on your birth certificate), then I have to tell you: I’ve been through those hoops. I’m still going through those hoops. That’s the angle I’m coming from on this.

double post. My bad

Mrebo said:

Sounds like he or his doctor could be on the hook for fraud…and yet what should the legal standard be for determining gender identity?

Just… prosecute him for fraud and perjury. We don’t need to bring the standards up to where they were previously. We shouldn’t have to jump through hoops in order to be seen under the law and by our peers as ourselves.

Edit: This is more about the strange biases in auto insurance (though there’s good rationale), but throwing us under the bus (and giving ammunition to bigots) is not a good way of going about it.

https://www.autoblog.com/amp/2018/07/27/man-changes-birth-certificate-gender-for-car-insurance/

I have no words to describe how appalled I am.

suspiciouscoffee said:

‪I’m reading Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy. An elderly woman saw me but couldn’t see the cover of the book, so she asked me:‬
‪"That’s not a hand [sic] Bible is it?"‬

‪"No ma’am."‬

‪"Good," she said, "I’m glad to hear it."‬

That would be a freaky religion if HHGttG was the basis of it.

http://thehill.com/policy/defense/397702-court-rules-against-trump-admin-on-transgender-military-ban

Even if I have my own misgivings about the US military, this is good news.

chyron8472 said:
I think people should strive to be polite. Some Many MANY people are asshats just because, regardless of whether it might be called for. In general, I think respect and general politeness is a laudable goal. I understand that the squeaky wheel gets the grease, but I don’t, for myself, think stomping around and making a scene is the proper way to get someone offering you a service to give you what you want.

Well, there’s a problem with that, even beyond the implications that you’re saying we should be tolerant of another’s intolerance.

These people don’t return the same respect that you ask us to afford of them. Violent assaults are still being conducted in the the name of anti gay bigotry. Conversion therapy is still legal in most of the United States, meaning that bigoted parents can elect to having their children religiously shamed and tormented for being LGBT (if they aren’t disowned outright, which is a very real possibility too.) And we’re the ones acting out for saying, “Hey, maybe you shouldn’t include a license for adoption centres to be homophobic in your bill”?

Finally, what do you want us to consider, “stomping around and making a scene?” Do you really think that people are going to make infantile temper tantrums? Are you saying we shouldn’t organize protests? Are you saying we shouldn’t discuss this matter with even the slightest bit of frustration and annoyance in our voice?

suspiciouscoffee said:

Transformers: More Than Meets the Eye vol. 5

I found out IDW was rebooting their TF line this fall, so I decided to give up my long and slow quest to read this series in it’s original issues and started looking for the trades.

Gay robots are still lost in space and it’s very fun and also very sad sometimes and I love it so. Unfortunately, there was a big crossover event after the issues collected here, so I’m not googling around to find out how necessary that book is to the rest of the series.

I’ve been meaning to pick up one of the IDW Transformers lines, but I think I’ll wait for the reboot first.

In the meantime, I’ve been reading another one of IDW’s comics: Abraxis Wren of Eberron. Apparently humble bundle has been doing a bundle of Dungeons and Dragons licensed comics published by IDW for the last little while, and my curiousity prompted me to pick it up.

As much as a prick Wren is, it’s been a fun read.

chyron8472 said:
JEDIT: I’m not saying they should put up with it. I’m saying standing there in the store having a shouting match about it isn’t going to get the customer what they want.

Who the fuck said anything about that?

chyron8472 said:

flametitan said:

Religious freedom is nonsense.

It’s generally accepted as given that the reason why early European colonists moved here was to pursue religious freedom, and that therefore it is one of the basic tenets the country is founded on. People in the modern age still use that as reasoning that the religous freedom of one can trump the civil rights of another, at least in America.

Religious freedom in the case of the Puritans, if I recall, was trying to get away from the Anglican Church, who weren’t really fans of them. Freedom of Religion, rather than religious freedom.

Freedom of Religion is the right to practice religion without the state saying “Christianity is illegal.” It is not a bad thing, and I would argue is almost necessary to separate church and state without banning religion outright. Religious Freedom, on the other hand, is usually used as a sanitized way of saying, “God justifies our anti-lgbt bigotry.” This is not OK in this day and age, as we try to move forward in acceptance.

Freedoms cannot be unilaterally applied, as certain freedoms will infringe upon and restrict others. In this case, the freedom to practice a religion that condemns a minority group and considers them sinful is in conflict with said minority’s right to be treated the same as any other person. Whose rights are more important here? I would say the right to be treated fairly and without bias to their minority status.

I disagree with the State’s decision to side with letting religion trump another’s liberty. It is a step backwards in having a tolerant society, and only serves to encourage discrimination.

Mrebo said:

flame,

Do you think private adoptions should be unlawful? Do you think parents shouldn’t be able to discriminate in who they give their baby to?

We’re talking about a state funded, public service. Private adoptions are another can of worms. Nevermind that the reason at least a portion of the kids in these services to begin with are there because their parents lost said legal custody.

why can’t religious people put away their religion long enough to provide a service?

Because they’re exercising their religiois freedom. Various community services and help provided to people emanates from religious belief.

I’m sorry I think religious freedom should not trump the rights of others to be able to raise loving families of their own. I’m sorry for all these oppressed Christians who have to offer services to people they think go against their religion. I’m sorry I think I deserve the same respect and dignity as everyone else because I am fundamentally human like the rest of you.

Religious freedom is nonsense. Every day we have to deal with people we disagree with. In every other case we tell the person to grin and bear it. Why should you get a free pass in this case because a book tells you not to be gay? The same book also speaks of dietary restrictions and of days of required fasting and prayer, but we don’t judge when someone doesn’t follow them.

chyron8472 said:

flametitan said:

https://www.advocate.com/politics/2018/7/11/republicans-vote-license-discriminate-against-lgbt-parents

God Dammit America.

I want to actually read the amendment to the referenced bill, because I want to approach this with a balanced opinion, but this article doesn’t cite it.

Now, because I live in Oklahoma, I clicked on the link in the article that mentioned Oklahoma passing a law that “let welfare agencies discriminate against same-sex couples who want to foster or adopt children.” The linked-to article then immediately starts out with “Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin has signed into law a bill allowing faith-based adoption and foster care agencies, even those with state contracts, to turn away prospective parents who pose a conflict with their religious beliefs.”

and… Yes? So? They’re faith-based organizations who hold to certain beliefs, and they want to be selective with regard to parents based on certain principles they hold to.

Well okay then. Moving on.

I think this is what you want. I agree the website should’ve provided it, but it’s not that hard to find.

Why should adoption agencies be run by the church at all, actually? They’re providing a service that to me should be part of the government, part of the separation of church and state. So many other people have to grunt and put away their opinions when they go to their jobs; why can’t religious people put away their religion long enough to provide a service?

That said, let me turn this around, so you may better see my perspective: Why should I be denied the right to adopt, the right to be a parent, because of something that doesn’t interfere with them?

https://www.advocate.com/politics/2018/7/11/republicans-vote-license-discriminate-against-lgbt-parents

God Dammit America.

DuracellEnergizer said:

Warbler said:

dahmage said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

Pretty pointless now.

We’ve been telling him that for years but he keeps doing it anyway. And then tells us he did it.

I don’t know what is so bad. I make a typo and then I correct it. What is so horrible about that?

Its pointless, that’s the point.

Why is it pointless?

There’s no point correcting a typo once it’s been seen by a large number of people and entered into their collective consciousness.

It’s even more pointless to announce that you fixed it, too.

Handman said:

I’m taking a few classes over the summer, and one of them is this required communications course. Today, the teacher mentioned how a misogynist disagreed with a feminist’s position to “kill all men”. And yet… I feel like any rational human being would disagree with that.

Needless to say, I find it very difficult to take this teacher seriously.

I don’t believe I’ve ever heard that phrase being used unless it was either a joke, or as part of a straw man argument. The closest thing I’ve heard is we should probably build a better definition of masculinity and develop role models for it, but that’s not the same.

TV’s Frink said:

I knew a guy who wasn’t allowed to call them “deviled eggs.” There were “angeled eggs.”

I’m not sure if that’s better or worse than Freedom Fries, or if they’re just equally dumb.

moviefreakedmind said:

Wow. I love intense physical sensations, I guess, so maybe I apply that to food also.

It’s fine. Like I said, I also like spicy food, but I’m still trying to build up a pain tolerance to it.

moviefreakedmind said:

I love spicy things. I love pain!

My mom is the worst for spicy things. You know how a restaurants that specialize in spicy things usually have a scale of 1-5 or 1-10 for how spicy a particular dish is? She’ll refuse to order unless it’s a 0 on that scale, and tries to subtly dissuade me from even trying the spicy things.