6 ms·

„Some say you shouldn’t exist. Others say you have a right to live. Hard question“

93s6oz 8y ago
That is polarising. An extreme take. I haven't seen anybody make the argument that trans people should be killed. Just that men should not be able to use women bathrooms. In this case, that's the argument. Turning it into something like that is not going to help anybody.
- matt4077 8y ago
  It’s polarizing only if you accept the you-should-die part one of the poles, which is sort of the problem I was getting at. I would characterize it more as reductio ad absurdum.
- pjc50 8y ago
  > I haven't seen anybody make the argument that trans people should be killed Brunei?
  - sadris 8y ago
    Think their law applies to homosexuals, not transexuals.
    - mike00632 8y ago
      If I were trans I don't think I would take my chances of them making a meaningful distinction.
- TimothyBJacobs 8y ago
  The OP didn't say the counter argument was that trans people should be killed, but that they shouldn't exist. You are taking the take to the extreme. Routinely, trans people are treated as an entity that should not exist. Or a disease or condition that should be rooted out. Not a valid identity.
tomp 8y ago
Oh come on you're making a huge strawman. Personally, I don't see a point in sex/gender-segregated bathroom at all. The only segreggation that makes sense to me is sitting/standing (which mostly conincides with private/non-private). But if we want sex-segregated bathrooms (and AFAIK many governments force that), then there's little point if people can just randomly change their mind about which category they belong to. What's the point of categories then?
- TheDong 8y ago
  > But if we want sex-segregated bathrooms then there's little point if people can just randomly change their mind about which category they belong to. What's the point of categories then? Categories do not need to be immutable. There are meetups for bikers and redditors and many other categories which anyone may self-identify as belonging to. These people prefer to think of themselves as belonging within those categories for any of a number of reasons, and accepting their choice is generally a decent thing to do, barring a compelling reason to the contrary. The point of the male/female categories is that a large number of people identify as one of those two genders, and prefer strongly to be recognized as within one of those categories. There are exceptions and it's more complicated than that, but in the common case, that's why the categories have value: people ascribe value to them. If recognizing someone's desired identity makes them feel more comfortable, why shouldn't we? In the case of genders, it's especially important since it's such an important category. Finally, people switching genders on a whim is a strawman itself. Transitioning your gender officially is a multi-year process, and you face significant persecution and stigma along the way. I don't see why anyone would undergo that unless it helped resolve some acute gender dysphoria.
  - tomp 8y ago
    > Categories do not need to be immutable. I agree, but you have to ask yourself, what purpose do the categories serve. It seems to me that th epurpose of sex-segregated bathrooms is two-fold: (1) to make people feel more comfortable, because many have weird hangups regarding intimacy and sex, and (2) to keep women safe. Even disregarding (2), it seems to be a choice between inconveniencing a tiny proportion of the population a bit more or inconveniencing most of the population a bit less. In any case, regardless of what bathroom trans people should go in, it doesn't even remotely start to solve other issues (e.g. what bathroom does a dad take his 4-year old daughter in) which is why I think the whole idea is a huge politically-motivated strawman.

That is polarising. An extreme take. I haven't seen anybody make the argument that trans people should be killed. Just that men should not be able to use women bathrooms. In this case, that's the argument. Turning it into something like that is not going to help anybody.

matt4077 8y ago
It’s polarizing only if you accept the you-should-die part one of the poles, which is sort of the problem I was getting at. I would characterize it more as reductio ad absurdum.
pjc50 8y ago
> I haven't seen anybody make the argument that trans people should be killed Brunei?
- sadris 8y ago
  Think their law applies to homosexuals, not transexuals.
  - mike00632 8y ago
    If I were trans I don't think I would take my chances of them making a meaningful distinction.
TimothyBJacobs 8y ago
The OP didn't say the counter argument was that trans people should be killed, but that they shouldn't exist. You are taking the take to the extreme. Routinely, trans people are treated as an entity that should not exist. Or a disease or condition that should be rooted out. Not a valid identity.

tomp 8y ago

Oh come on you're making a huge strawman. Personally, I don't see a point in sex/gender-segregated bathroom at all. The only segreggation that makes sense to me is sitting/standing (which mostly conincides with private/non-private). But if we want sex-segregated bathrooms (and AFAIK many governments force that), then there's little point if people can just randomly change their mind about which category they belong to. What's the point of categories then?

TheDong 8y ago
> But if we want sex-segregated bathrooms then there's little point if people can just randomly change their mind about which category they belong to. What's the point of categories then? Categories do not need to be immutable. There are meetups for bikers and redditors and many other categories which anyone may self-identify as belonging to. These people prefer to think of themselves as belonging within those categories for any of a number of reasons, and accepting their choice is generally a decent thing to do, barring a compelling reason to the contrary. The point of the male/female categories is that a large number of people identify as one of those two genders, and prefer strongly to be recognized as within one of those categories. There are exceptions and it's more complicated than that, but in the common case, that's why the categories have value: people ascribe value to them. If recognizing someone's desired identity makes them feel more comfortable, why shouldn't we? In the case of genders, it's especially important since it's such an important category. Finally, people switching genders on a whim is a strawman itself. Transitioning your gender officially is a multi-year process, and you face significant persecution and stigma along the way. I don't see why anyone would undergo that unless it helped resolve some acute gender dysphoria.
- tomp 8y ago
  > Categories do not need to be immutable. I agree, but you have to ask yourself, what purpose do the categories serve. It seems to me that th epurpose of sex-segregated bathrooms is two-fold: (1) to make people feel more comfortable, because many have weird hangups regarding intimacy and sex, and (2) to keep women safe. Even disregarding (2), it seems to be a choice between inconveniencing a tiny proportion of the population a bit more or inconveniencing most of the population a bit less. In any case, regardless of what bathroom trans people should go in, it doesn't even remotely start to solve other issues (e.g. what bathroom does a dad take his 4-year old daughter in) which is why I think the whole idea is a huge politically-motivated strawman.