Transgender roles in soceity

[Araknyd_Commander]

So you would undermine their struggle for equal acceptance (when even the Olymics has let transwomen compete provided they met the right criteria, i.e. having been on hormones for enough years as to not have an advantage) merely to suit your tastes? Is it because you might look at a model, think she's hot, and then fall into deep, existential crisis should you discover she was born male?

No, Frey.
A competition based on NATURAL female looks should be based on that.
100% natural FEMALE looks.
I also gave an example of women with boob jobs and butt implants.
While I like bigger breasts, I don't think that women with implants should compete either.
I'm not merely saying that due to sexual preferences I don't want them to compete.
NO!
What I am aiming at is that PEOPLE with surgical alterations, IN GENERAL, should not be allowed to compete (male OR female) in a competition based on looks.
It's like getting cheat codes to beat a game VS someone who actually put the time to beat it on their own.
No enhancements. MALE or FEMALE.
Same goes for the steroid guys on the Mr America competitions.
They shouldn't be allowed to compete.
Guys who naturally spend time conditioning their bodies, WITHOUT enhancements, should be allowed to compete.


As for sports, the Olympics are a different competition all together.
The Olympics aren't basing their competitors on looks in a certain gender.
If they are now considered as females, then they should be allowed to compete in that division, as that gender.

[Eks]

"Forgive"? Sounds like someone wants to blame the victim. But, I suspected that from earlier anyways. Nevermind that. No, the core lesson I'm referring to is that there is still so much hate that a trans person can be killed for it and in addition, courts (and people) still think it's OK and civilized to hear or argue a gay-panic/trans-panic defense. It's because people 'understand' how someone in the situation of the attackers 'might feel' that such defenses are even allowed to be heard. It's repugnant because it shows that generally, if violence against a trans (or gay) person, people feel sympathy for the accused. Disgusting. As for the Hunter case, yes, like you said, it's especially difficult to swallow when you realize people were derelict in their duty purely because the patient whose life they could have saved was trans. This is to say nothing of the less-publicized, slightly more at random but regular beatings and killings that don't get much press coverage.

I'm trying to understand why you insist on ignoring the fact that Gwen lied to her lovers. Being a trans doesn't grant you the freedom to lie to everyone without consequence.

Also, there ISN'T enough bias (or "hate", as you want to call it) in the court system to allow people to be killed for this. That's why Gwen's killers were convicted. It's also why the idiots who allowed Tyra Hunter to die lost their jobs and why her mom was awarded large amounts of money. The courts have to allow the defendants to plead their side of the argument; that's what makes our legal system fair. It's when the courts tell these people that they were wrong for killing Gwen or for not issuing proper medical treatment to Tyra that the courts prove that they aren't against the LGBT community.

I still think we're ages away from a day where transgendered people can find even a modicum of acceptance without stealth. People's initial reactions to the thought of a transgender person are "Well, I hope I don't get fooled! Not me!"; Or look at popular media, which has loved to portray trans people as exclusively prostitutes and drug addicts. But because trans people are almost universally hated, it's okay. Nobody questions it. No one questions why some trans people wind up indeed, in sex work. Surely it's because of depravity and not because they've been forced out of regular, honest employment by their former employers who want to send 'the right image' to the consumer. Surely it isn't because of companies like Target funneling money to anti-LGBT advocacy groups that lobby to keep gender-identity anti-discrimination off the books in many states, is it?

No, people have a long way to go before they can talk about transgendered people's 'role' in society being anything other than the latest placeholder for the leper, and not just regular members of society. Hell, some people here view them as a 'third sex'. Pitiful.

They don't get any sort of acceptance? Really? I remember seeing a transwoman in Orlando that had some men at a gas station checking her out and were then shocked when she turned her head revealing her masculine face. All the guys did was laugh at each other for checking out a dude. They didn't accost her or beat her. Sure, they didn't go over and try to get her number, but that's because they didn't want to date her because she had a dick. There's nothing wrong with that, either.

Yes, it's unfair that companies shun the trans community, but that's because that keeps up the companies image which in turn keeps their business up and thereby keeps their profits high, and that is the entire point of a business. We have made progress with this issue considering that 20-30 years ago, you probably could've killed a transgendered person and gotten away with it. You seem to think there's a switch that we can flip to make it so everyone accepts these people, but it doesn't work that way.

[Freyith]

No, Frey.
A competition based on NATURAL female looks should be based on that.
100% natural FEMALE looks.
I also gave an example of women with boob jobs and butt implants.
While I like bigger breasts, I don't think that women with implants should compete either.
I'm not merely saying that due to sexual preferences I don't want them to compete.
NO!
What I am aiming at is that PEOPLE with surgical alterations, IN GENERAL, should not be allowed to compete (male OR female) in a competition based on looks.
It's like getting cheat codes to beat a game VS someone who actually put the time to beat it on their own.
No enhancements. MALE or FEMALE.
Same goes for the steroid guys on the Mr America competitions.
They shouldn't be allowed to compete.
Guys who naturally spend time conditioning their bodies, WITHOUT enhancements, should be allowed to compete.


As for sports, the Olympics are a different competition all together.
The Olympics aren't basing their competitors on looks in a certain gender.
If they are now considered as females, then they should be allowed to compete in that division, as that gender.

You've chosen a difficult position to defend.

I want to ask you a question then. Suppose you are the director of a female pageant/looks competition such as Miss Florida or whatever. Suppose you have 10 applicants (I'm not being scientific here, I'm just throwing out numbers for sake of an example, sorry). Suppose that one of these people is transgender. How would you know, first of all? Considering many states today once a trans person obtains their two letters from their physician and psychiatrist for hormone replacement therapy and sex reassignment surgery, their birth certificate can be modified to reflect the change? Certainly not by their medical record, as there would be no legal need for such a person to disclose it, nor would their doctors under patient-doctor confidentiality. What do you do then? Take the Pepsi Challenge?

I'm not sure what's going on in your head, maybe you're thinking a transperson would have some sort of advantage? If anything, they would have serious disadvantages, considering that even after full transition, many transwomen still feel, psychologically, that they are inferior to the most average cisgender woman (no thanks to attitudes like yours, no doubt).

I'm trying to understand why you insist on ignoring the fact that Gwen lied to her lovers. Being a trans doesn't grant you the freedom to lie to everyone without consequence.

Where did I ignore it? I specifically said that Ms. Araujo made some bad decisions. If you want to distort my (admittedly unpopular) position, at least say something I could have plausibly implied. And even so, lying isn't something people should punish with violent death.

Also, there ISN'T enough bias (or "hate", as you want to call it) in the court system to allow people to be killed for this. That's why Gwen's killers were convicted. It's also why the idiots who allowed Tyra Hunter to die lost their jobs and why her mom was awarded large amounts of money. The courts have to allow the defendants to plead their side of the argument; that's what makes our legal system fair. It's when the courts tell these people that they were wrong for killing Gwen or for not issuing proper medical treatment to Tyra that the courts prove that they aren't against the LGBT community.

When did I say the justice system is 'against the LGBT community'?

I wasn't speaking of the repercussions of their acts. I said, and quite specifically too, that it doesn't serve proper justice to allow for a gay-panic/trans-panic argument. Judges regularly throw out defense (or prosecutorial) arguments they believe do not adhere to the constrictions of the justice system of their jurisdiction. Legitimizing the gay/trans-panic defense by allowing it to be heard in front of jurors only reinforces the negativity surrounding trans and gay people, and opens the door to a less discerning jury accepting it as a reasonable motive for killing someone.

They don't get any sort of acceptance? Really? I remember seeing a transwoman in Orlando that had some men at a gas station checking her out and were then shocked when she turned her head revealing her masculine face. All the guys did was laugh at each other for checking out a dude. They didn't accost her or beat her. Sure, they didn't go over and try to get her number, but that's because they didn't want to date her because she had a dick. There's nothing wrong with that, either.

Yes, it's unfair that companies shun the trans community, but that's because that keeps up the companies image which in turn keeps their business up and thereby keeps their profits high, and that is the entire point of a business. We have made progress with this issue considering that 20-30 years ago, you probably could've killed a transgendered person and gotten away with it. You seem to think there's a switch that we can flip to make it so everyone accepts these people, but it doesn't work that way.

I'd love to know how it keeps their profit margins high. Nobody seems to be fleeing/voting with their wallets from companies who keep mum on these misguided social engineering attempts. Let's not delude ourselves.

I said that in large part, there is little social acceptance. There are great strides to be made still in that direction. I don't think there's a 'switch' like you said that can change things. In fact, everything I've said until this point argues the exact opposite: there is still a long, hard road fraught with challenges ahead of transgendered people in joining the ranks of regular society, and that likely in neither of our lifetimes will it be 'OK' to the public at large for someone to be trans. People wouldn't be getting disowned by their families, fired from their jobs, barred from insurance coverage, beaten, raped, or killed if it were. Apparently though, that's not a problem, so long as a trans person isn't beaten in broad daylight, we're doing great.

Please.

[Araknyd_Commander]

You've chosen a difficult position to defend.

I want to ask you a question then. Suppose you are the director of a female pageant/looks competition such as Miss Florida or whatever. Suppose you have 10 applicants (I'm not being scientific here, I'm just throwing out numbers for sake of an example, sorry). Suppose that one of these people is transgender. How would you know, first of all? Considering many states today once a trans person obtains their two letters from their physician and psychiatrist for hormone replacement therapy and sex reassignment surgery, their birth certificate can be modified to reflect the change? Certainly not by their medical record, as there would be no legal need for such a person to disclose it, nor would their doctors under patient-doctor confidentiality. What do you do then? Take the Pepsi Challenge?

I'm not sure what's going on in your head, maybe you're thinking a transperson would have some sort of advantage? If anything, they would have serious disadvantages, considering that even after full transition, many transwomen still feel, psychologically, that they are inferior to the most average cisgender woman (no thanks to attitudes like yours, no doubt).

I wouldn't know, but living in Miami and having worked in South Beach where there are a lot of transgenders, some of them honestly DO look A LOT better than many women out there.
Sure, some of them wouldn't look good, but for discussion sake here (considering the subject of an all female modeling show), the ones going out looking like supermodels DO look very good, and are easy to mistake.
There wouldn't be a way to find out if they're really women, as you said, but (IMO) as with women that got butt and breast implants, I just don't think it's fair to the rest of the competitors.
Why can't they be models in photoshoots, as well?

I don't know if they do have the advantage since I don't watch many modeling shows to begin with (male or female), but it would seem that way, since they can surgically make themselves appear to be what this sick and twisted world calls "perfect."
My personal view of a perfect woman doesn't include 36DD, 24-inch waist and 36-inch butt.

I have NOTHING against transgender people, at all.
I'm just asking from a very sincere point-of-view as to why you think they have the disadvantage, considering that a lot of them that would be going for modeling jobs look better than some of the female models.
Please don't take it the wrong way as if I'm attacking the transgender community.
I'm just trying to have an open mind and understand the situation better, Frey.

[Sub-Zero_83]

I recently read about how Mrs. Universe is going to allow a transgender person into their competition.
Also that tranny that won America's Next Top Model.
How do you guys feel about this?


Do you feel as if they are legit women?
If surgery is involved do you think they should be considered women?




I think its cool that they want to do shit like this.
If you go through the all the hard work to completely change your life, I think you should be considered a woman.
Just be cool about it and tell somepony if you had a dicky at one point

Personally I don't see what the issue is; as long as they are visually convincing as women, and genuinely identify as women, then from where I stand they are women.

[Freyith]

I wouldn't know, but living in Miami and having worked in South Beach where there are a lot of transgenders, some of them honestly DO look A LOT better than many women out there.
Sure, some of them wouldn't look good, but for discussion sake here (considering the subject of an all female modeling show), the ones going out looking like supermodels DO look very good, and are easy to mistake.
There wouldn't be a way to find out if they're really women, as you said, but (IMO) as with women that got butt and breast implants, I just don't think it's fair to the rest of the competitors.
Why can't they be models in photoshoots, as well?

I don't know if they do have the advantage since I don't watch many modeling shows to begin with (male or female), but it would seem that way, since they can surgically make themselves appear to be what this sick and twisted world calls "perfect."
My personal view of a perfect woman doesn't include 36DD, 24-inch waist and 36-inch butt.

I have NOTHING against transgender people, at all.
I'm just asking from a very sincere point-of-view as to why you think they have the disadvantage, considering that a lot of them that would be going for modeling jobs look better than some of the female models.
Please don't take it the wrong way as if I'm attacking the transgender community.
I'm just trying to have an open mind and understand the situation better, Frey.

Considering that the number of transgender women who opt for FFS (facial feminization surgery) is relatively low due to the enormous cost, I don't see where any possible advantage could come from. So what you're saying is that because some transwomen look as good (or better) than ciswomen, that's...bad? Unfortunate? Unfair? Your statement though that it would be admittedly difficult to find out if they were 'really women', as you put it is telling, however, that you carry with you a strong bias. It seems to me that to you, transwomen are in fact, not women (despite doctors signing off on allowing them to seek treatment, and their legal documents stating so), but rather something else entirely. This is exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about.

Why the disadvantage? Virtually any transwoman will tell a cisgendered person that it is twice as difficult for them to pass and look presentable compared even to the most average example of a cisgendered equivalent person. It's a view I hear a lot, and often.

The news isn't all bad, though. I heard earlier this year that the Girl Scouts of America allow transgendered girls into their troops (I found this out mostly because I heard of the outcry by one former girl scout and her parents who advocated for a boycott). I bought several boxes of Thin Mints and Tag-alongs when I heard this.

[Shirayuki Mizore]

I recently read about how Mrs. Universe is going to allow a transgender person into their competition.
Also that tranny that won America's Next Top Model.
How do you guys feel about this?


Do you feel as if they are legit women?
If surgery is involved do you think they should be considered women?




I think its cool that they want to do shit like this.
If you go through the all the hard work to completely change your life, I think you should be considered a woman.
Just be cool about it and tell somepony if you had a dicky at one point

Yeah like you said with the hard work and all that they deserve to be called women.

It's not an easy decision and I understand how they feel like 2% because I can be very feminine myself at times.

It just pops outta nowhere like a ninja.

[back,back,back,low punch]

I actually kind of agree with Araknyd on the whole competition thing.


When they get those surgeries, they can get the biggest, perkiest and softest bresteseses/booties they want.
Seems a bit unfair now that I think about it.

[Freyith]

I actually kind of agree with Araknyd on the whole competition thing.


When they get those surgeries, they can get the biggest, perkiest and softest bresteseses/booties they want.
Seems a bit unfair now that I think about it.

You're making the assumption that all or most transwomen have breasts only because of surgery, which simply isn't true. In the vast majority of cases it's through HRT (hormone replacement therapy which for male-to-female transgendered people utilizes anti-androgens, progesterone, and estrogen in order to make their hormone levels identical to that of ciswomen.), in which the body develops secondary sex characteristics in the same processes as through puberty, as if they'd been born to that sex. It usually takes a couple years on them for full results, too.

[de_nhoj]

You're making the assumption that all or most transwomen have breasts only because of surgery, which simply isn't true. In the vast majority of cases it's through HRT (hormone replacement therapy which for male-to-female transgendered people utilizes anti-androgens, progesterone, and estrogen in order to make their hormone levels identical to that of ciswomen.), in which the body develops secondary sex characteristics in the same processes as through puberty, as if they'd been born to that sex. It usually takes a couple years on them for full results, too.

This is a horrible argument they are talking about disallowing trans people from entering these contests because their looks are not natural. Even if we say this trans person only used hormones to acheive their looks it still is not natural it's the same reason why steroids/hgh is disallowed in many sports because even though it's not surgery and really just hormones, it's unnaturally enchancing their performance.

[CF7]

Hm! While I agree with Araknyd_Commander...I now see, that "Ms Universe" is a title for..."multiple" interpretations.

Y'know what I'm getting at?

[Freyith]

This is a horrible argument they are talking about disallowing trans people from entering these contests because their looks are not natural. Even if we say this trans person only used hormones to acheive their looks it still is not natural it's the same reason why steroids/hgh is disallowed in many sports because even though it's not surgery and really just hormones, it's unnaturally enchancing their performance.

Enhancing how? By having the same hormone levels as cisgendered women? If my argument is 'horrible' like you said, you're doing an equally poor job of refuting it. Also, the paragraph you quoted isn't an argument, it's clarification of facts. So no, try again.

[de_nhoj]

Enhancing how? By having the same hormone levels as cisgendered women? If my argument is 'horrible' like you said, you're doing an equally poor job of refuting it. Also, the paragraph you quoted isn't an argument, it's clarification of facts. So no, try again.

Yes it is enchancing even if it is just bringing them up to average levels, if a woman with small breasts decided to enlarge her breasts but only to average size would you not call that enchancing? If a baseball player had less than an average amount of muscle for the average baseball player and decided to use steroids to bulk up but only to get to the average amount of muscle would you not call that enchancing? My point is even if you are below average in an area doing something unnatural to make yourself average in that area is still unnaturally enchancing by any metric.

[Freyith]

I think that comparison falls on its face, given the nature of hormone replacement therapy, as it doesn't guarantee an 'average' level of physical results (in terms of secondary sex characteristics). The exterior results vary by person. It doesn't present any advantage whatsoever. If you did even the most minimal amount of reading on the subject of HRT you would perhaps understand this, though it seems fairly evident that you haven't, judging from those statements.

[de_nhoj]

I think that comparison falls on its face, given the nature of hormone replacement therapy, as it doesn't guarantee an 'average' level of physical results (in terms of secondary sex characteristics). The exterior results vary by person. It doesn't present any advantage whatsoever. If you did even the most minimal amount of reading on the subject of HRT you would perhaps understand this, though it seems fairly evident that you haven't, judging from those statements.

I never said it guaranteed an average level and frankly it doesn't matter. If someone did something illegal in a contest (in this case enchancing their looks) it doesn't matter at all how minute it was. If someone increased their breast size by a barely noticeable amount you don't just say "oh it was only a little so it doesn't matter". If during a race a runner tries to trip another runner but their attempt fails do you say "well it didn't really do much so it doesn't matter", no doing something against the rules in a contest no matter how small gets you disqualified and this should be an obvious fact.

[Freyith]

I never said it guaranteed an average level and frankly it doesn't matter. If someone did something illegal in a contest (in this case enchancing their looks) it doesn't matter at all how minute it was. If someone increased their breast size by a barely noticeable amount you don't just say "oh it was only a little so it doesn't matter". If during a race a runner tries to trip another runner but their attempt fails do you say "well it didn't really do much so it doesn't matter", no doing something against the rules in a contest no matter how small gets you disqualified and this should be an obvious fact.

Considering that the situation in question (Mrs. Universe) allowed a trans person into their contest, it evidently isn't 'against the rules'. On top of that, all of your examples fail at being valid comparisons, as hormone replacement therapy is not just about physical appearance, and nor does 'taking more makes bigger boobs'. But, I suppose when you're against something, you'll find whatever justification for your opinion.

[de_nhoj]

Considering that the situation in question (Mrs. Universe) allowed a trans person into their contest, it evidently isn't 'against the rules'. On top of that, all of your examples fail at being valid comparisons, as hormone replacement therapy is not just about physical appearance, and nor does 'taking more makes bigger boobs'. But, I suppose when you're against something, you'll find whatever justification for your opinion.

All I was saying, which you seem to fail to understand, is that if a beauty pageant (I'm not specifically talking about Ms. Universe here) has rules against surgery, hormones, etc. then those rules should apply to trans people as well however it is you who seems to support a double standard which puts trans people above the rules.

[Freyith]

All I was saying, which you seem to fail to understand, is that if a beauty pageant (I'm not specifically talking about Ms. Universe here) has rules against surgery, hormones, etc. then those rules should apply to trans people as well however it is you who seems to support a double standard which puts trans people above the rules.

And what I'm saying is that trans people should be allowed to compete in any of those competitions (by the way, from what I understand, most of those top tier pageants have no such restrictions on those things), with the understanding that their circumstances are different to that of cisgendered competitors. Otherwise it wouldn't be the level playing field you seem to want (though I suspect it's more a trans-free playing field rather than a level one, but nevermind that). But as you said of me, you 'fail to understand' this idea too. Maybe you want trans people to have their own competitions? A 'separate but equal' system, eh?

The larger issue at hand is being lost though, and that it's that the marginal--read: dubious--gains in a level playing field by disallowing transwomen from competing in such contests would have an undue impact on the reality and perception of equality of transgendered vs. cisgendered people, i.e. the bigger picture.

[de_nhoj]

With the understanding that their circumstances are different to that of cisgendered competitors. Maybe you want trans people to have their own competitions? A 'separate but equal' system, eh?.

I seriously doubt you understand what a competitive contest is. In contests there is no handicaps, understanding of circumstances, they are meritocracies in the truest senses of the word. The objective of a contest isn't to give those with a lower chance of winning on their on merits the same chance of winning it's to put the best of the best in a certain area in a competition. You want to compete in a weight lifting competition but have arthritis do you think they'll allow you to bend the rules to be "understanding"? You want to be an NBA player but you're 5'5" do they make all the other players crouch around to be "fair"? Do we give people in these circumstances a little "understanding" because they're disadvantaged? Do ugly people get to bend the rules in beauty pageants because it's not "fair" to them? No we don't so why should we allow trans people to bend the rules to suit your definition of the word fair. If a beauty pageant has no rules against surgery/hormones/other things that can increase attractiveness then sure let anyone under the sun in the pageant. And I chuckled a bit when you said "seperate but equal" which only deals with the U.S. government putting up public services for different types of people. I guess you also despise the WNBA since it's "separate but equal" to the NBA, eh?

[Freyith]

I seriously doubt you understand what a competitive contest is. In contests there is no handicaps, understanding of circumstances, they are meritocracies in the truest senses of the word. The objective of a contest isn't to give those with a lower chance of winning on their on merits the same chance of winning it's to put the best of the best in a certain area in a competition. You want to compete in a weight lifting competition but have arthritis do you think they'll allow you to bend the rules to be "understanding"? You want to be an NBA player but you're 5'5" do they make all the other players crouch around to be "fair"? Do we give people in these circumstances a little "understanding" because they're disadvantaged? Do ugly people get to bend the rules in beauty pageants because it's not "fair" to them? No we don't so why should we allow trans people to bend the rules to suit your definition of the word fair. If a beauty pageant has no rules against surgery/hormones/other things that can increase attractiveness then sure let anyone under the sun in the pageant. And I chuckled a bit when you said "seperate but equal" which only deals with the U.S. government putting up public services for different types of people. I guess you also despise the WNBA since it's "separate but equal" to the NBA, eh?

And yet none of these examples accomplish what you intend, which is to invalidate my opinion that I think there is no problem with it. Also, beauty pageants are hardly meritocracies. You've failed (quite handily) to deduce the difference between the examples you cite and the situation given by BBBLP in the OP. Your view would ban people from participating by virtue of the fact that in order to undergo treatment and transition into their gender role in society--something separate entirely from gaining a competitive edge--they may need surgery and HRT. You would make rules in order to suit your definition of the word 'fair'. People don't transition in order to gain a competitive edge in a beauty pageant, unlike how a professional baseball player might take steroids specifically in order to gain such an advantage over their peers.

The reason people are even having a discussion about this isn't because whether or not its fair or not to include transwomen in a beauty pageant--a pageant they would already be at a disadvantage in due to bias--(something you seem to be opposed to on principle), but rather to examine the issues of social equality and integration facing the transgendered. The fact that you can't see that (or at the very least don't acknowledge it) is proof that discussing it with you is a waste of time.