Transgender and Gender Non-conforming People

[Andy Y]

[edit: fascinating that this site considers that word to be offensive!]

 

 

 

It was an entry on the software's word filter. It's now been circumvented.

[rockershovel]

I think the main reason for gay marriage as opposed to civil union was that in one the state recognises your relationship and in the other you marry each other whether or not the ceremony is civil or religious.

Not so. Civil marriage with no religious component has long been established. Conversely, the State recognises marriage; the various stages of a CofE marriage (the taking place in public, the pause for any person objecting to state their case, the vows stated openly and the signing of the Register) are all legal requirements. Hence the periodic "revelations" of women discarded by their Muslim husbands and finding they have no redress in law, because Muslim marriages do not meet British legal requirements.

 

Civil Union in the French sense (PACS) is specifically open to persons who may, or may not be eligible to marry (adoptive siblings, for example). It is not an inherently sexual union and legal benefits and obligations vary in detail.

[Fenman]

The problem that I see with this sort of thinking, it sort of becomes a reverse discrimination. If the hotel, for example only serves vegetarian meals, and someone insists in wanting a bacon sandwich must they serve a bacon sandwich, even if they have no bacon? I would expect a seller of any goods or service to be able to decide if they want to provide said goods or service to a particular customer, but it need not be a confrontational situation. ...

 

I fear you misunderstand. The issue is about the customer who is eating the food. Of course a restaurant can only offer vegetarian food and refuse to serve bacon. What it cannot do is refuse to serve vegetarian food to someone just because that person is, for example, black. Or gay. Or has a disability. Etc.

 

If they are a gay person who is, say, wearing soiled clothes then of course they can be refused service - they are being refused service because they are wearing soiled clothes, not because they are gay. Their gayness is irrelevant. The same refusal would apply to anyone wearing soiled clothes and, therefore, is not discriminating against someone because of an irrelevant characteristic.

 

But the B&B case was solely about the customers' sexuality. The owners would not permit a gay couple to rent a room because they were gay. It was as outrageous an action as refusing to rent a room to someone because they were black or had a disability.

 

I grew up in a world whre some businesses routinely displayed signs informing us that certain groups were not welcome in those places. I am thankful that that world is being made to disappear.

 

Paul

[PhilH]

It seems to be really difficult to find accurate statistics, so these could be wildly out, but it could be that:

2,500-3,000 members could be LBGT or have had some experience of it at some time in their lives

1,000 are sociopaths

250-300 have Aspergers

6,500-7,000 will have, or have had, some form of mental illness

Many, many will have other physical and neurological disabilities

Plus lots of other things that either temporarily or permanently make them "different"

 

So there's a great need for tolerance and accepting diversity here, and everywhere else in life.

 

If anyone has more accurate statistics it would be interesting to know, as these are just some I've picked up randomly from things I've taken some sort of interest in, and different sources can vary substantially.

 

One thing that this thread has got me thinking about, and which I sort of alluded to in my first post, is given all of the wonderful diversity present in the human race just what is 'normal'?

 

Given my life experiences, and those of people around me, I just don't know what is 'normal' or if 'normal' exists. Is it blandness, conformity to a set of ethereal rules, I just don't know.

[rockershovel]

Re Fenman, above;

 

It is you who are reasoning from your conclusions. Marriage as historically defined - be it Christian, Muslim or anything else - is in large part, about natural reproduction and the obligations and rights arising therefrom. The elaborate rituals and conventions surrounding the chastity of the bride have everything to do with demonstrating the paternity of the offspring of the marriage. For this reason a Muslim widow may not remarry until a specified period after her widowhood; the same applies to divorced women. Western women observed mourning periods of similar duration, for similar reasons.

 

The folk tales collected by the brothers Grimm and others, reflect this. What is "Cinderella" if not a tale about dis inheritance in favour of step-siblings, arising from the contractual obligations of marriage?

 

To assert glibly "we certainly do not believe these things now" is not an argument, it is a reductio ad absurdum. To refer again to Lady Hale, if I can be divorced by my wife on grounds of infidelity, or my marriage annulled on grounds of non-consummation, and neither of those things are true of a homosexual in a legally defined marriage because the relevant legal definitions do not exist; then clearly that persons marriage and mine, differ fundamentally and no amount of politically correct intellectual dishonesty can make it otherwise.

 

Anyway, define "fulfilment". The American Constitution certainly found it impossible, confining itself to "the pursuit of happiness". Infidelity or desertion is legally demonstrable, "fulfilment" is not. No homosexual couple will ever have one of those conversations about consequences unintended at the time, which bring so much fulfilment (in the traditional sense) to more traditional marriages. No, I see no equivalence in any demonstrable sense there.

 

Rather than refer to Lady Hale, I should prefer to refer to Mr Bumble the Beadle, and his assertion that "the law is an ass, and should have its eyes opened by experience"

Edited September 24, 2015 by rockershovel

[Tony_S]

I am quite aware that that civil marriages have been around for some time and I am happy that same sex couples can have the same wording (with I suppose gender specific terms substituted) and intent that I had. I am happy that for those same sex couples of a religious persuasion may be able to find religious establishments to marry them with whatever words their faith entails. If there is a desire for the civil partnership to be extended to other individuals then I suspect government lawyers are thinking about such things. At the moment if you want to leave your possessions to someone you can't marry I suspect a will is a good idea. I know for instance with my pension I can name people other than my spouse (not that I have!)to receive my death benefits.

Edited September 24, 2015 by Tony_S

[rockershovel]

Re PhilH, above, "normal" is a statistical term referring to a consistent, demonstrable majority grouping within a wider sample. Like it or not, heterosexuality in normal in the most literal sense of being the most common condition.

[Tony_S]

I think (well occasionally) going back to the OP, that talking about gender issues is helpful. I can't honestly say that it was a discussion at meal times here but as such topics were part of the degree my son did we did find ourselves chatting. Over the years at work I had met plenty of people from the LGB initials from LGBT but he knew more than I did.

I think there has been quite a generational change in attitudes and hope it will continue. I too remember my own marriage being strongly criticised (it won't last doom doom etc) some time last century. We certainly wouldn't have been legal in South Africa!

[rockershovel]

I am quite aware that that civil marriages have been around for some time and I am happy that same sex couples can have the same wording (with I suppose gender specific terms substituted) and intent that I had. I am happy that for those same sex couples of a religious persuasion may be able to find religious establishments to marry them with whatever words their faith entails. If there is a desire for the civil partnership to be extended to other individuals then I suspect government lawyers are thinking about such things. At the moment if you want to leave your possessions to someone you can't marry I suspect a will is a good idea. I know for instance with my pension I can name people other than my spouse (not that I have!)to receive my death benefits.

Another non sequitur.

 

Muslims contract religious marriages which aren't legally valid in the UK, and have long done so. There is a long tradition of regarding these as equivalent, although recent development show this to be legally unfounded.

 

You are right that government lawyers "thought about" civil partnership for other than same sex couples; the fact if it being specifically excluded, despite being very popular in France and the Netherlands in particular, suggests that reflecting the popular view was not paramount among their priorities

[BG John]

One thing that this thread has got me thinking about, and which I sort of alluded to in my first post, is given all of the wonderful diversity present in the human race just what is 'normal'?

 

Given my life experiences, and those of people around me, I just don't know what is 'normal' or if 'normal' exists. Is it blandness, conformity to a set of ethereal rules, I just don't know.

I think "normality" varies depending on where you live and the culture you live in. People on the autism spectrum, which is what I'm currently reading up on, generally regard people who aren't on the spectrum as "neurotypical", or just "typical", which seems a better way to put it. I think saying that "a typical person does something in a particular way" is far fairer on people who are different to saying "a normal person......", which can be regarded as very discriminatory. There may be more examples of "typical" people around, but it doesn't make anyone who's not typical better or worse than them, just different. I imagine a world where everyone was exactly the same would be pretty awful, and certainly very boring, so diversity is important.

[raymw]

 

I fear you misunderstand. The issue is about the customer who is eating the food. Of course a restaurant can only offer vegetarian food and refuse to serve bacon. What it cannot do is refuse to serve vegetarian food to someone just because that person is, for example, black. Or gay. Or has a disability. Etc.

digressing a bit, it seems we a re going a bit upmarket, it was a B&B, I referred to hotel, you referred to restaurant - I think a B&B may not be required to have disabled facilities, nor have to serve meat.

 

I know of vegetarians who complain about folk eating meat, and meat eaters complain about vegetarians. really the same thing. as the b&b situation alluded to. So,  B&B says 'I can't serve you bacon', or I can't 'serve you a double bed'. Where are lines drawn? I have the bed, you have the money. I'm keeping the bed, you keep the money'. It happens all the time, in other fields - I think it is related to freedom of choice. The B&B, wanting to upset the customers, could have said something else, I expect, but most likely came out with some religious diatribe that they thought was connected to Christianity, and the customers instead of thinking 'what a crap place, we'll go somewhere else', played the 'law says you got to' game, or most likely some third party rights movement got involved.  Nothing will have changed, everybody will keep thinking the same as before, just small religious type B&B's will do things differently, only have single rooms, whatever, and some gay movements will get more pushy.

 

Anyway, in a time of change, things tend to oscillate a bit, until they settle down to some sort of middle road, a bit like going metric in the UK- we're not fully committed as a nation, and most of us oldies know inches and pounds are right..

[rockershovel]

The B&B issue is very much relevant, the other two are not. There is no specific legal entitlement to eat, or refuse to serve bacon, or sleep in a double bed. The action by Stonewall was clearly a case of provocation and entrapment, and since the practice has earlier been mentioned, I see no essential difference between Stonewall's actions and the policeman in the lavatory rafters - either both were equally wrong, or neither.

 

The key point, which Fenman is at some pains to attempt to avoid but cannot, is that the key "freedom" espoused by the liberal left is to be discriminated against for insufficient orthodoxy, to be told that you are wrong because someone else says so and that there is no difference between demonstrable fact, and subjective opinion.

 

The late Terry Pratchett embodied this in the legal doctrine of "quia ego sic dico"

[Tony_S]

Another non sequitur.

Muslims contract religious marriages which aren't legally valid in the UK, and have long done so. There is a long tradition of regarding these as equivalent, although recent development show this to be legally unfounded.

You are right that government lawyers "thought about" civil partnership for other than same sex couples; the fact if it being specifically excluded, despite being very popular in France and the Netherlands in particular, suggests that reflecting the popular view was not paramount among their priorities

Sorry for the delay, I had to Google the Latin as my wife wasn't here to confirm it meant what I thought it did.

Muslims who want to have the Civil ceremony first and then the religious service at the mosque. Some Mosques have licences to do both rather like the Christians and Jews do. Some people of a range of faiths don't recognise civil marriage, as some religions don't recognise civil divorces. My parents in Law did't have marriage certificates, my wife doesn't have a birth certificate. It hasn't been a great problem.

Edited September 24, 2015 by Tony_S

[Fenman]

... The action by Stonewall was clearly a case of provocation and entrapment, and since the practice has earlier been mentioned, I see no essential difference between Stonewall's actions and the policeman in the lavatory rafters - either both were equally wrong, or neither.

 

The key point, which Fenman is at some pains to attempt to avoid but cannot, is that the key "freedom" espoused by the liberal left is to be discriminated against for insufficient orthodoxy, to be told that you are wrong because someone else says so and that there is no difference between demonstrable fact, and subjective opinion. ...

I would have thought anyone could see the difference between organised police entrapment, and ordinary people going about their lawful business but encountering unlawful discrimination - and then getting support to fight it.

 

I realise the facts of this difference may not fit with your views about which side were victims, but that is what happened.

 

I notice that you consistently refuse to engage with the fundamental principle of equality. You have ignored the Supreme Court's statement of principle and instead hide behind Latinate phrases the relevance of which strikes me as at best questionable.

 

It seems to me to boil down to this: do we want a society in which everyone is free to live as they please provided it doesn't adversely affect others? Or do we want to privilege some groups and, therefore, make 2nd class citizens of others?

 

There is clearly a difference between what we do in private, and what we do in public - the latter sphere includes running businesses that offer public services.

 

To try to drag this discussion back to the OP, trans people seem to me to be entitled to the same rights as those of us who are not trans. What is wrong with that?

 

Paul

[trisonic]

I would hate to think of some really good modelers  who come into this category being driven away by a few careless words of some unthinking person.

 

Sorry I should elucidate, I don’t know whether any have been “driven away” from this site. Transgender or indeed gender orientation or sexual preference (between consenting adults)  of any sort has no effect on modeling skills.

 

It seems a real shame that I even have to write that last sentence....

 

Best, Pete.

[shortliner]

People - can I , as the second poster in this thread just say that I posted my comment, and reported it to Andy, as I was afraid that, as with so many other earlier subjects, this one was a prime candidate to "kick off", and I suggested that the Mods should keep a close eye on it. As you know, he replied and gave his opinion that the discussion should be allowed to continue. I have to say that I am delighted to see that it has been - in the main - discussed rationally and calmly, in a manner that may well improve everyone's knowledge about what has been a largely taboo subject. Thank you all for proving my fears unfounded.

Best

Jack

[jamie92208]

As we are now on page 4, which I never expected this topic to get to, may I pose a question that I've often thought about.   As I mentioned in my last post I am aware of, and know personally, several transgender people within the hobby.  The hobby is almost all male orientated, though not exclusively so.  Childhood toys are a great influence on all of us and model trains are, or at least were, almost exclusively aimed at boys.    Most of the Transgender people that I know have continued to follow the hobby after making the change.  There has been some discussion, some of which I couldn't quite follow, of how much genetics is involved in gender.   Does the fact that many Transgender people, including the OP, continue to follow the hobby show that there is any genetic disposition towards following this great hobby.

 

I'm not sure that this all makes sense but I am trying to be careful with my language.  I suppose I'm asking whether our mutual interest in the hobby is through nature or nurture and if it I nature, is it in our chromosomes or our genes.

 

Jamie

[raymw]

There was a very interesting 3 part series on BBC - may still be on Iplayer - called 'your inner fish' which explains why some things are as they are.

 

When it comes to many of the aspects mentioned in this topic, most folk will have some prejudice of some sort - either founded on own experience, or be reference to other folk/search systems that we referred to.  I think that is based in a primitive survival instinct sort of thing. I think that if we try to  understand a bit on how or why we think the way we do, we can strengthen those areas we feel we are not so good at. Not necessarily easy, a bit like doing calculus homework with the telly on. 

 

I was looking for a pithy quote, but came across some by George Carlin, so you can look 'em up for yourselves http://thinkexist.com/quotation/just-cause-you-got-the-monkey-off-your-back-doesn/761553.html

[Nearholmer]

While it is educational to learn about the challenges of being transgender, I'm completely baffled as to what connection it has with model railways.

 

Seems to me that anyone, irrespective of gender, static or in-transition, race, religion, politics, hair-colour, class, native-language, shoe-size, whether or not they like coffee, and, if they do, whether they prefer it with or without milk and sugar, or a host of other irrelevant distinctions can, and do, enjoy railway-modelling.

 

In fact, I would observe that people, who in other circumstances might struggle to come to civil terms with one another, often get on splendidly while talking about, building, and playing with model trains. As is evidenced in this thread, it tends to be when they depart from talking about model trains that the trouble starts.

 

So, Garett, what are your railway-modelling interests?

 

Kevin

[rockershovel]

Dear me, Fenman is getting into a terrible tizz. I do hope he DIDN'T spend too long trying to work out Pterry's "latatian" gag which simply translates as "because I say so" . If he genuinely believes that two Stonewall activists genuinely mistakenly booked at a remote B&B (whose purpose was clearly indicated on their advertising) then... well, the slurs sometimes cast upon railway modellers may be true; otherwise he is simply being disingenuous.

 

I've had a good deal of experience of B&B over the years, and they are significantly different from hotels. The two tourists could perfectly well have booked into any number of hotels and avoided the issue entirely. They could undoubtedly have quite easily found a B&B which would have welcomed them, and chose not to. No, this case was always without the merits of common justice.

 

But the law has been significantly changed. English Common Law was based upon the principle that any action not specifically illegal, was legal by default; that for any action to result, some demonstrable harm or result must have taken place. Hence the definition between Criminal and Civil Law, whereby barristers could enrich themselves amid the impenetrable jungle of slander and defamation, free of any concept of verifiable truth or criminal justice.

 

A while ago, a woman was arrested following an outburst on a Croydon tram. You may feel she was ill-mannered or lacking goodwill; she was certainly no stranger to the courts, given the various unrelated offences also charged. However, it would have been inconceivable thirty years ago that a person could be charged with a criminal offence, carrying a possible custodial sentence, based wholly upon the unquantifiable degree of offence given to a hypothetical third party. I don't regard it as desirable that people shout abuse in public transport, but neither do I regard it as desirable that the full panoply of the criminal law be deployed at no small cost, to drag such people through the courts at length.

 

Given the filthy and outrageous things reported with increasing frequency in our press, I'm afraid the best that can be said of fenman's posturing is that it is so deluded as to be irrelevant, because far more important issues beset us. I'm particularly minded of his phrase "live as we wish to, provided others aren't affected" which has always seemed to me to be utter nonsense. No man is an island, as the quote has it; the question is the degree of offence caused relative to other issues. Fenman appears to hold the view that this is self-evident and not requiring proof or debate, such is the public unanimity on the issue. I couldn't disagree more with such a statement.

 

To revert to the OP, am I offended? That's my business; I see no harm caused. I don't really see what the whole issue has to do with this forum, but apparently others do.

Edited September 24, 2015 by rockershovel

[raymw]

It's a discussion, like new or old cars, other unrelated stuff in Wheeltappers. Nobody asks about model railway interests in those other threads, so why are you thinking differently in this instance? Got behind in your calculus homework? Nobody has asked me what my modelling interests are, nor many other posters?

 

Hi Kevin, not picking on you, but I guess I did, but it is all to do with discrimination.prejudice, etc. at least in my mind.

 

A while after the race discrimination laws came into this country, (the thought police) there was a news item on the telly when they asked a number of children if they new anyone that treated them differently, if they were white or black. They all said they didn't, except one little African lad. They asked who it was - 'the lady in the corner shop' he said. ' 'No, you must be wrong the others said, she sells you the sweets in the same way as she treats us' 

 

His reply - 'No she doesn't - she puts the change into your hand, but for me she puts it on the counter!'  

 

Nobody realised it was happening, except the recipient.

 

It can be a problem

[Fenman]

... I've had a good deal of experience of B&B over the years, and they are significantly different from hotels. The two tourists could perfectly well have booked into any number of hotels and avoided the issue entirely. They could undoubtedly have quite easily found a B&B which would have welcomed them, and chose not to. No, this case was always without the merits of common justice.

...

While I admire the energy you are putting into attacking me (while employing the rhetorical device of addressing others - presumably I am too contemptible for you to address directly?), your assertion is simply nonsense.

 

Let us suppose that an evangelical Christian couple was turned away from a B&B owned by a gay couple, because the owners did not approve of evangelical Christians. You could argue that those trouble-making Christians should have known better than to go to a gay B&B, that they were obviously trouble-making, and they could easily have avoided the situation. My view is that they would be victims of unlawful discrimination.

 

Or we could consider those black people who decided to sit on the bus seats reserved for white people - they were being deliberately provocative and should have known their place, I assume?

 

Equality works both ways and protects all of us.

 

Paul

[shortliner]

People - can I , as the second poster in this thread just say that I posted my comment, and reported it to Andy, as I was afraid that, as with so many other earlier subjects, this one was a prime candidate to "kick off", and I suggested that the Mods should keep a close eye on it. As you know, he replied and gave his opinion that the discussion should be allowed to continue. I have to say that I am delighted to see that it has been - in the main - discussed rationally and calmly, in a manner that may well improve everyone's knowledge about what has been a largely taboo subject. Thank you all for proving my fears unfounded.

Best

Jack

Oh, dear - It was all going so well too! Perhaps I shouldn't have posted this - could we please get back to the original subject, and ask you two to take your disagreement off the forum and into PMs, were it will look a little less like trolling, and an attempt to get the thread locked!

Edited September 24, 2015 by shortliner

[Nearholmer]

Ray MW

 

You ask: "....... so, why are you thinking differently in this case?"

 

'Cos I didn't spot that it was in Wheeltappers. Mae Culpa.

 

Now I know it is, I will soak up the education, and leave-off the railway-modelling talk.

 

Kevin

 

PS: the bit about calculus homework I don't understand. Should I?

[Ozexpatriate]

I suppose I'm asking whether our mutual interest in the hobby is through nature or nurture and if it I nature, is it in our chromosomes or our genes.

The science isn't in yet on whether there are genetic variations with endorphin response in neuro-receptors to the presence of hot machine oil and coal smoke or clag combined with clickety-clack noises.  

 

I can't tell you it's genetic but I certainly like the combination of hot machine oil, coal smoke and clickety-clack and chuff-chuff noises.