Transgender and Gender Non-conforming People

[PhilH]

Bit of a generalisation that......  Take the topical case of the Naked Rambler - should naturists be allowed to wander round in public naked if they so choose?  Or do there have to be limits somewhere?

 

DT

Who's going to be the judge of that...you? Where do you want those limits set at? Who's going to set them (and please don't say politicians, their track record isn't exactly perfect)

 

It is a dilemna without a doubt but as my granny used to say 'one man's meat is another man's poison', so what upsets you wouldn't necessarily upset me.

 

Which I guess brings us back to square one....

[Nearholmer]

PhilH

 

My personal take on the questions you're exploring:

 

- yes, we do need limits on freedoms, if we are to coexist reasonably harmoniously, because individually and collectively human beings are capable of doing all sorts of beastly (which probably insults beasts) things, and, at a lower level, all sorts of things that are pretty well guaranteed to annoy one another and cause disharmony and destroy more happiness than they generate;

 

- the setting of the limits is better done by some democratic process than by "diktat", if for no other reason than that tends to lead to acceptance of, and adherence to, whatever limits are arrived at, with relatively little coercion;

 

- all democratic processes are imperfect, but they are less imperfect than the alternatives.

 

- if a person really wants to live without limitations, they can, by living a very, very long way away from everyone else, who will then know nothing of whatever they decide to do. The person who decides to do this will, of course, have sacrificed one enormous freedom to gain his/her freedom, in that they will no longer be free to commune. Big old sacrifice to make, methinks.

 

Kevin

[PhilH]

That's a bit of a leap from acceptance by society because one is somehow different to living without limits.....I don't think I ever suggested that.

Edited September 25, 2015 by PhilH

[Nearholmer]

Phil

 

I wasn't saying that you had; I was just exploring the dilemmas that you set out in 154. I think they are genuinely interesting and difficult dilemmas, and quite fun to pursue to logical conclusions.

 

K

[Lady_Ava_Hay]

That is absolutely poignant and 100% true. Not to mention, being part of a group that's less privileged, I only have the energy to fight for my own issues but that doesn't mean I don't support the rights of other demographics.

 

 

It is quite usual to fight one's own battles with extra vigour. This path we tread is not the easiest. I, being a TV, have no chance of being mainstream and possibly, don't want to be. I want to be the very best trannie I can be and some people have said that I am well on the way.

 

Transsexuals are striving to be accepted as women and that is a very different path although we may well have started in the same place.

 

You have my undying support and, if you fully transition, we may never truly share our paths as I always have the option to revert. Neither of us could be described as cowards but yours is a vastly more difficult path than mine. Respect is due and given.

 

By the way, I also sometimes feel that I am a woman but it is fleeting if very intense. My Ava moments.

[TheSignalEngineer]

..  Take the topical case of the Naked Rambler - should naturists be allowed to wander round in public naked if they so choose?  

Passed him at Torside Crossing when he was on his first big walk. Definitely not a sight to be repeated but one of his companions was a bit of hot.

 

Seriously, we are what we are and have to handle the situation as best we can. I have known a lot of LGBT etc including as work colleagues and members of my staff. I only had a problem with one and that was because he was rubbish at his job. Otherwise he had my respect as he was the first person I knew to publicly 'Come Out' in what was at the time a seriously macho atmosphere.

Edited September 25, 2015 by TheSignalEngineer

[jjb1970]

Clearly there is no such thing as absolute freedom. Does anybody advocate giving people the freedom to commit murder, rape, pillage etc? In any society some degree of restriction is necessary for the greater good. Freedom of expression and speech includes the freedom to say stupid things and offend however I do think there is a distinction between causing offence with opinions that others may disagree with profoundly and promulgating hate and bigotry. That is quite a difficult position and as with many things in life it is a grey area in which there is a high degree of subjectivity which requires sensitivity and good judgement from the wise and good in making and enforcing laws. And despite a lot of silly season stories I actually believe our courts get these matters right an awful lot more times than it going horribly wrong.

 

 

On the issue of gender, sexuality, race, ethnicity, disability, trans-gender etc I think people are what they are and nobody should face prejudice or exclusion from society or feel compelled to feel shame or to hide who they are just because they do not conform with what others in society consider to be the norm. Personally I think what happens between consenting adults in private is their business and nobody else's. Personally I do not see that it is anybody else's business if a person cross dresses, is homosexual etc. There is a tendency to bemoan modern society and hark back to the good old days but in terms of tolerance towards groups who not that long ago were marginalised and persecuted I think we live in a far better country than the country of my youth in the 70's and 80's. Not perfect at all, but hugely improved.

[WD0-6-0]

That will never happen as long as religion exists.

First of all I'd like to say that Garratt has a lot of guts to say what he's said and that is a really fantastic thing.

Secondly apologise for commenting on this post without reading the whole thread but this struck me straight away with both the content and the number of agrees. I'm in two minds regarding it as part of me is offended but another part can't argue with it, I would like to say that there are people who believe religion who support the LGBT community, I am a Christian but I interpret my religious teachings as to love all and not to judge no matter what, my best friend is pansexual and I have no problems with anyone from the LGBT community despite what many people who share my religion think. But I can't argue with the comment because a lot of people enterpret religion in other less accepting ways. I just want to say we aren't all bad and some of us do support you regardless of what other religious believers say we should or shouldn't do.

To label all religious people as homophobic bigots is just as bad and offensive as being a homophobic bigot, just because it's aimed the other way doesn't make it right in anyway shape or form.

Edited September 25, 2015 by WD0-6-0

[bbishop]

Well said, Rhys.  I've been trying to write something along those lines for several days; couldn't get it right.  I'm an Anglo-Catholic, and ao our priests wear pretty fancy dresses.  At least we let the girls dress up now, as well as the boys. 

 

But I think we are meant to keep religion out of it.  However you may wish to read, in the Authorised Bible: 1 Kings 10 : 1

 

Bill

['CHARD]

This thread demonstrates a huge amount more tolerance and understanding than any of the 00-SF, 4-SF, HO000-DN, DOGA, and other abject horrors from the depths of B2B thread hell that I've just emerged from.  Again.

[skipepsi]

Never go back Chard just never go back.

[Torper]

On the issue of gender, sexuality, race, ethnicity, disability, trans-gender etc I think people are what they are and nobody should face prejudice or exclusion from society or feel compelled to feel shame or to hide who they are just because they do not conform with what others in society consider to be the norm. Personally I think what happens between consenting adults in private is their business and nobody else's

 

That's fine in so far as it goes but whatever the view on this forum might be there are people who genuinely find homos*xuality disgusting and/or may well be very uneasy about cross-dressing and/or their deeply held religious faith might lead them to hold negative opinions on such subjects (although they would never wish to promulgate hate or violence).  Now these people too are what they are, but they often face prejudice or shame if they dare to express such views because they do not conform with today's politically correct climate.  Does - or should - tolerance work both ways?

 

DT

Edited September 25, 2015 by Torper

[trisonic]

Well, take that woman in Kentucky who decided that her beliefs took precedence over everybody who wanted to marry their partners who just happened to be the same sex (and were backed by the full force of US law).

 

She knew that they could get married in the next county - and even the very people reporting to her had no qualms about issuing Wedding Licenses.

 

So ask yourself, if you disagree, what made her do it? She was not there to change or amend laws - she was there to ensure that the laws were carried out properly, yet she did not.

 

One good thing about the American Constitution is that it separates Religion from State - yet it still didn’t work until the woman tried to martyr herself by spending a week or two behind bars.

 

I’m actually a republican (note the small r) so don’t assume that I’m a left winger of some sort. I take each subject on it’s own merit which Is why I’d never “Fit” within any formal political party that I’m aware of.

 

Best, Pete.

 

Best, Pete.

[Ozexpatriate]

Let's leave the discussion about religious implications alone here.

 

As always, politics and religion are the third rail of polite conversation and we've mostly avoided them so far.

[mightbe]

 

 

Does - or should - tolerance work both ways?

 

Simple answer: no. 

 

Longer answer: absolutely not. Tolerance of intolerance defeats the purpose of being tolerant in the first place. 

 

Prejudice, in its various degrees and forms, is not an inborn trait. Prejudice has to be socially reinforced. Accommodating prejudice is a non-solution. It does nothing to prevent the problem nor does it curtail the existing prejudice. Up to a certain point, one can concede that someone "is a product of his/her time/place", and simply let that person continue to see the world as they always have. Usually it's the elderly that receive that sort of accommodation, because it is true that beyond a certain stage of one's life it is nearly impossible to change one's perspective on something in a drastic way.

 

No matter people's' perspectives, I have sincere doubts that any of them have ill-will in their hearts. I tend to think everyone wants to be kind and loving in the way they see fit. 

 

It is quite sad to say it but I think it takes generations, and therefore the deaths of older generations, for society to slowly progress on an issue--it can't happen all at once for everybody. 

 

Regardless, whatever these individuals experience can't really be called prejudice, at least not in the way it was being used before. It depends on how "public" they make their own prejudices. Obviously some things are simply unacceptable. 

Edited September 26, 2015 by mightbe

[Dagworth]

Since hipsters have been mentioned, I find them risible. Goths too, for that matter.

At the risk of being banned (and I've been here a VERY long time but I cannot let this lie) UP YOURS MATE

 

I know of no basis upon which they may be regarded as "ethnic minorities" but Greater Manchester Police apparently do; they have deemed it a sufficient use of public money to set up a "hate crimes" unit to investigate the situation (which I would not have regarded as any great mystery) that on Saturday nights in Northern towns, the combination of large numbers of young people, drugs and alcohol tend to have unfortunate consequences, and those who make themselves prominent tend to come in for undue share of the unwanted benefits.

Try getting off your high horse and seeing what life is like for anyone who doesn't conform to every norm that average society says is acceptable. When a young girl gets kicked to death by a group of bored teenagers just because of what she chooses to wear then hate crime really does exist. I spent five days in hospital a few years back as a result of some guy in Leeds deciding he didn't like what I chose to wear.

 

 

I've lived in both the goth world and the model railway world for all my adult life and both are generally very tolerant and both worlds are very much inhabited by those that the rest of the world don't accept as equals for no valid reason.

Both groups also comprise people who are generally more intelligent and more talented than normal society, and I would happily put money on a good deal more than 50% of the members of both communities having been bullied at school.

 

Edit to add: Both groups also seem to attract a very large proportion of LGBTQI people too and I'm glad to see so many who make all people welcome in both

 

Andi

Edited September 26, 2015 by Dagworth

[Londontram]

There's nothing I can add to whats been said on here already and many have said it better than I ever could but I would just like to say well done to the OP and hope you find happiness in your life how ever you feel you want to live it. Regards Steve

[PhilH]

Simple answer: no. 

 

Longer answer: absolutely not. Tolerance of intolerance defeats the purpose of being tolerant in the first place

 

Tolerance top trumps..that equates to 'intolerance of tolerance of intolerance'.

 

I'm going back to bed now....

[Guest 40-something]

I was taught from a very young age that if I cant accept how someone wants to live their life in their own way, as long as it doesnt cause harm, then I should take a long hard look at myself

[Oldddudders]

Inevitably this thread has headed into a few culs-de-sac, but I am rather better informed on the core subject than before, and am grateful for that.

 

I am also gratified to be able to say that several members for whom I already had substantial respect now walk even taller in my view.

 

As for the OP and David White, they are each simply twice the man they were.

 

All that said, may I crave an indulgence from David. Your 'CV' signature has now taken on new significance!

['CHARD]

At the risk of being banned (and I've been here a VERY long time but I cannot let this lie) UP YOURS MATE

 

 

Try getting off your high horse and seeing what life is like for anyone who doesn't conform to every norm that average society says is acceptable. When a young girl gets kicked to death by a group of bored teenagers just because of what she chooses to wear then hate crime really does exist. I spent five days in hospital a few years back as a result of some guy in Leeds deciding he didn't like what I chose to wear.

 

 

I've lived in both the goth world and the model railway world for all my adult life and both are generally very tolerant and both worlds are very much inhabited by those that the rest of the world don't accept as equals for no valid reason.

Both groups also comprise people who are generally more intelligent and more talented than normal society, and I would happily put money on a good deal more than 50% of the members of both communities having been bullied at school.

 

Edit to add: Both groups also seem to attract a very large proportion of LGBTQI people too and I'm glad to see so many who make all people welcome in both

 

Andi

 

I empathise with every word of this post.  Punk is my religion and I've taken a few fists for daring to codify this, as others see it, through the way I have dressed.  

 

Fortunately the physical threats are, seemingly, in the past.  But as a middle-aged dad, I can still be made to feel uncomfortable when using provincial public transport - by looks, sniggers and comments.  Generally from what I will indulgently describe as unenlightened sectors of society.  A very close friend, again cast in the punk dad mould, has been set on twice in the past year by drunk or pilled-up racist skinhead types whilst simply waiting for the last train.  Singled out for the way he's dressed, for some bonehead's tormented idea of sport.  

 

We have a little rhyme going by the title 'Last To Be Picked For Games,' which puts some of Andi's observations into a few verses. The outsider's perspective, with coping mechanisms.  A fairly common theme - outsiders.  And maybe it does enable a slightly less judgmental, more accepting outlook.  Just saying.

[Fenman]

That's fine in so far as it goes but whatever the view on this forum might be there are people who genuinely find homos*xuality disgusting and/or may well be very uneasy about cross-dressing and/or their deeply held religious faith might lead them to hold negative opinions on such subjects (although they would never wish to promulgate hate or violence).  Now these people too are what they are, but they often face prejudice or shame if they dare to express such views because they do not conform with today's politically correct climate.  Does - or should - tolerance work both ways?

 

Early in my career I was involved in introducing equalities policies in local government. This was a time when many newspapers decided that treating people equally was somehow a "loony left" policy (it was several years before such "loony left" bodies as the Army adopted almost identical policies - although in their case they couldn't bring themselves to welcome The Gays, which had to be done first by the Navy, of course).

 

All our staff had to be trained. Our philosophy was simple: we were not interested in changing (or even knowing) what our staff thought, or attacking their profound beliefs. Their thoughts and beliefs were entirely a matter for them. But their actions while they were at work (and actions included speech) were absolutely the council's business: every member of society was forced to pay taxes and, hence, our wages. Every member of society was entitled to respect and to equal access to the public (sic) services we provided with their money. Compliance with this was not optional for our staff. I am frankly amazed that, several decades later, the US official referred to above thinks it appropriate to take the public's money for her salary while denying some of those people access to the public services to which they have a right.

 

So, should we tolerate intolerance? I would argue yes, but only up to a point. Freedom of speech is about ensuring that people have the space to express themselves in the public domain. At another point in my career I ran the programme for a "think tank", which included a huge free public lecture and debate series: like most similar bodies I adopted a policy of "no platform for fascists", the thinking being that even hosting a fascist speaker would somehow confer some legitimacy on their ideas. I now think my policy was incorrect: it forced ideas that I personally find repugnant to fester in dark corners where they could grow without being made to confront their logical flaws or their contradictions in the harsh glare of debate and publicity. But I am not sure we could have done it any other way in those times: fascists were so closely associated with racism that everything may well have got very bloody. I am probably less concerned about "hate speech" than many others would be, but I accept this is a problematic area and having violent and racist abuse hurled at one must be an appalling and perhaps terrifying experience. I don't know if we have yet got the balance of that right.

 

Equally, there are areas where I believe, perhaps perversely, that we should absolutely not tolerate intolerance. And that brings us back to the public v. private spheres. For me, anything which is public - and that includes businesses offering services to the public, or public sector bodies guarding access to services or privileges - should offer equal access to all, irrespective of irrelevant personal characteristics. And that should be backed up by the law. The law should support everyone - it is not a matter of turning a minority group who have been oppressed into an over-privileged group who can then oppress their former oppressers. It is about trying to create a society in which everyone has an equal opportunity to live fulfilled lives.

 

While there have been huge and largely welcome changes in my lifetime, I remain surprised that some people seem utterly unable to engage with what, to me, is self-evidently the only decent way to organise a society. Though I freely accept that other opinions are available.

 

Paul

Edited September 26, 2015 by Fenman

[Revolution Mike]

Goths too, for that matter. I know of no basis upon which they may be regarded as "ethnic minorities" but Greater Msnchester Police apparently do; they have deemed it a sufficient use of public money to set up a "hate crimes" unit to investigate the situation (which I would not have regarded as any great mystery) that on Saturday nights in Northern towns, the combination of large numbers of young people, drugs and alcohol tend to have unfortunate consequences, and those who make themselves prominent tend to come in for undue share of the unwanted benefits.

 

Sorry, but that is absolute nonsense (as Andi has already pointed out) - without wishing to distract from the OP's thread, I suggest you go and read about the tragic case of Sophie Lancaster and her boyfriend then you might understand exactly why GMP though it was necessary.  Your implication that young people, drugs and alcohol making it almost inevitable that those who are different get attacked has very unhealthy undertones of victim-blaming...what happened to the attackers being responsible for their actions...

[Oldddudders]

Sorry, but that is absolute nonsense (as Andi has already pointed out) - without wishing to distract from the OP's thread, I suggest you go and read about the tragic case of Sophie Lancaster and her boyfriend then you might understand exactly why GMP though it was necessary.  Your implication that young people, drugs and alcohol making it almost inevitable that those who are different get attacked has very unhealthy undertones of victim-blaming...what happened to the attackers being responsible for their actions...

It has echoes of the rapist who claims "Dressed like that - she was asking for it!" Hopefully the law will always see otherwise.

[The Stationmaster]

Regrettably there seems to be always a thuggish (either physically or mentally) element in our society which is somehow unable to be tolerant of the ways of others when it comes to dress or other matters of lifestyle or simply being who they are.  In some cases the intolerance is - rather alarmingly - bred or taught into them while in others it seems to be some sort of lowest common denominator herd instinct, a sort of 'club' for those incapable of broader or tolerant thought and behaviour.

 

If people dress in a certain way or have particular sexual preferences or have suffered the agonies of being born in the wrong body then who are we to criticise or attack them?  Provided they do not harm others (as is the case for the overwhelming majority of them) then society has gradually changed to accept that such people are just people - no different from the rest of us.  I can understand some folk, particularly those having a level of intelligence, who cannot accept such change and that often doesn't just apply to those of us of more mature years BUT the general acceptance of society is the critical area.  And it is the acceptance by society, and not 'instruction' by law makers etc, which is the important thing.

 

Now as some on here will know I have no time at all for what is often called 'political correctness', in fact I regard it as a form of fascism and intolerance when someone is telling me, or anyone else, what or how to think and alas there seems to be a lot of it around (but fortunately not here) - often nowadays attacking older values in our society.  We do not have to lose most of our older values in order to develop new ones, we don't have to lose anything at all in order to accept the LGBT section of our society.  As Fenman explained - it's not about telling people what to think; and in my view it is far more about simply remembering that society is a wider thing than our individual version of it and that there are other individuals within it.