Trial begins in slaying of transgender woman

[Elok]

Dude, you're cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs. It is not "disrespectful" to call a spade a spade, and I fail to see how his/her/its feelings are going to be hurt when

A. He/she/it ain't here, and
B. He/she/it is dead

If you have a Y chromosome, you're a guy. If you have a Y chromosome and a closet full of dresses and pink pantsuits, you're a guy in drag. If you have sex-change surgery and hormones to make you grow boobs, you're a surgically mutilated guy who uses hormones. It's not disrespect, it's the simple truth, and to suggest that we're being frightfully mean by not playing along with someone else's delusion is absurd.

[Elok]

Okay, so the family humored him. What's your point?

[Q Classic]

Dude, you're cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs. It is not "disrespectful" to call a spade a spade,

It can be, actually. If I called, for example, a certain religionist homophobic ***** on this site a douche ****wit, I really am just calling a spade a spade. It's still offensive and disrespectful.

Or, to be more flip about it, if I called your mother a whore, it'd be offensive and disrespectful. Even if I would be calling a spade a spade.

and I fail to see how his/her/its feelings are going to be hurt when

A. He/she/it ain't here, and
B. He/she/it is dead

Right there. "It". That's actually pretty offensive. At that point, you're dehumanizing the person--no easy task, since she's already a corpse--and using the very same language that the murderer did in his transphobic rage.

I am not accusing you or comparing you to the murderer, however.

I'm simply pointing out that people do not, in general, refer to another person as an "it" unless it is infused with some amount of disdain and disrespect.

Indeed, it would have been better if you simply referred to Angie as a "he", like DinoDoc insists on doing.

If you have a Y chromosome, you're a guy.

In the reductionist sense, yes, if you have a Y chromosome, you are male. I am not denying that.

If you have a Y chromosome and a closet full of dresses and pink pantsuits, you're a guy in drag.

Or married.

If you have sex-change surgery and hormones to make you grow boobs, you're a surgically mutilated guy who uses hormones.

This is where I'm going to draw the line. Ideally, the only people who go this far are the ones who actually do think they were born into the wrong gender; psychological therapy usually manages to screen others out.

I'm not sure if the disconnect between the physical and the persona that transgenders experience can really be explained to cisgenders. I honestly don't really understand it, being cis myself, but it's apparently that they feel trapped in the wrong body, so much so that very often, it leads to a host of other mental problems.

It's not something, however, that trans- people go through because of trivial reasons.

It's not disrespect, it's the simple truth, and to suggest that we're being frightfully mean by not playing along with someone else's delusion is absurd.

It's not absurd, because it's not a delusion, no more than homosexuality is a mental disorder.

Okay, so the family humored him. What's your point?

If the family "humors" her, I'm willing to "humor" her.

[Elok]

Look up delusion: "a patently incorrect but firmly held belief which cannot be swayed by any amount of reason." I'm using it correctly, unless you argue that s/he was technically aware of the biological facts and said "I am all woman" using some bizarre philosophical definition of the verb "to be." As it happens, Gender Identity Disorder *is* in DSM-IV, though homosexuality was removed in the seventies. The criteria for what constitutes mental illness are quite fuzzy and mutable, depending on changing societal mores. It's mainly a matter of the deviation or abnormality or whatever you want to call it causing the subject significant distress or impaired function in his/her day-to-day life. But that's a whole other subject.

I said he/she/it in order to cover all the pronoun bases, with the intended implication "whatever the hell you want to call this person." Don't get in a snit. This person held a manifestly untrue belief, presumptively as a result of some unknown quirk in brain chemistry (is there any research on what causes transgender identity?). If you want to go with it, fine, but you've got no right to jump down our throats for differing. I won't call a Furry "that wolf over there," nor refer to a guy with multiple personalities as "Bob, Ted, Joe and Alice." It's their problem, though I wish them well.

[Q Classic]

Look up delusion: "a patently incorrect but firmly held belief which cannot be swayed by any amount of reason."

And I disagree that Angie's womanhood is "patently incorrect".

I'm using it correctly, unless you argue that s/he was technically aware of the biological facts and said "I am all woman" using some bizarre philosophical definition of the verb "to be."

I'm not Clinton; I'm not going to defend her comment there.

As it happens, Gender Identity Disorder *is* in DSM-IV, though homosexuality was removed in the seventies. The criteria for what constitutes mental illness are quite fuzzy and mutable, depending on changing societal mores. It's mainly a matter of the deviation or abnormality or whatever you want to call it causing the subject significant distress or impaired function in his/her day-to-day life. But that's a whole other subject.

Actually, it's not, not really. You apparently think it's still justified that it should be listed in the DSM-IV, and based on the manner in which you're treating this subject; I do not. Otherwise, why would you bring it up?

I said he/she/it in order to cover all the pronoun bases, with the intended implication "whatever the hell you want to call this person." Don't get in a snit.

Why shouldn't I? "It" is one of the worst things you can refer to a person as. It's a dehumanizing tactic.

This person held a manifestly untrue belief, presumptively as a result of some unknown quirk in brain chemistry (is there any research on what causes transgender identity?).

It's still in its infancy, actually; some of what's been published has been discredited. That's probably why it's still in the DSM-IV.

If you want to go with it, fine, but you've got no right to jump down our throats for differing. I won't call a Furry "that wolf over there," nor refer to a guy with multiple personalities as "Bob, Ted, Joe and Alice." It's their problem, though I wish them well.

I'd like to think I haven't been jumping down anyone's throat, but rather been rather polite and trying to point out why I think we should respect Ms. Zapata's wishes in being referred to as a she.

You're the one who's been most aggressive here, particularly with how dismissive you've been, as well as projecting your disagreeableness onto my posts.

[Jon Miller]

So we should refer to someone who considers themselves as a vampire, or a werewolf, or a chicken, as a vampire, werewolf, or chicken?

Nah, they are delusional.

If (s)he went through with the sex change surgery/etc, I would give 'living as a woman' and so would use the she pronoun (altthough I would personally still consider such a male, due to chromosomes). However, (s)he still had a penis. That isn't even 'living as a woman', that is a guy in drag.

And I will acknowledge that there are rare cases where the binary sexual definition isn't entirely clear. Those cases, for example XXY, are very rare though.

We already have feminine and masculine to define roles (in a binary system). I am entirely happy to say feminine male.

JM

[Q Classic]

So we should refer to someone who considers themselves as a vampire, or a werewolf, or a chicken, as a vampire, werewolf, or chicken?

Are you equating transwomen (who exist) to vampires (non-existent), werewolves (non-existent), and chickens (non-human)?

There's a difference between a human struggling to match their inherent gender with their body, and people trying to match their humanity to other species. The transwoman is trying to become more fully human; those wanting to become vampires, werewolves, and chickens, are trying to become inhuman.

If (s)he went through with the sex change surgery/etc, I would give 'living as a woman' and so would use the she pronoun (altthough I would personally still consider such a male, due to chromosomes). However, (s)he still had a penis. That isn't even 'living as a woman', that is a guy in drag.

The actual surgery is quite expensive is my understanding, which is why many seem to seek it outside the United States; even then, it's quite an investment. Additionally, the process of transitioning actually takes quite a while; I would presume that it starts off with the hormone therapy, followed by dressing/living in public as the eventual gender, only at the end having the surgery.

I do not know if Ms. Zapata was on that path, nor do I know where she was, if she was on it. Without that information, but given what I do know, I'm willing to accept that she wished to be referred to as a woman.

As far as the "guy in drag" comment--there are actually higher rates of crossdressing amongst the straight, heterosexual community than there are in the gay community. Gays generally don't dress as women, not in the fashion Ms. Zapata did, because it would be counterproductive.

We already have feminine and masculine to define roles (in a binary system). I am entirely happy to say feminine male.

Lorizael brought up a good point, that the gender binary might not be so useful or helpful; what's more, "feminine male" still describes a huge area, that can cover straights, gays, and trans; and what entails "feminine" in this case? Traditional Western gender roles?

[Elok]

"Feminine male" works for me. Q, I didn't bring up the subject of mental disorder, you did--though you referred to homosexuality as "not a mental disorder." I mentioned it as an interesting aside on that general point. The truth is, what goes in the DSMs depends largely on what degree of eccentricity society is willing to tolerate; if people don't freak out around guys in dresses, it will not cause them significant distress and therefore will probably not be classified as a disorder. I don't see that happening any time soon, and I consider a certain level of discomfort with the mentally divergent to be perfectly acceptable (though definitely not to the point of homicide). Not that we should throw rocks and call them freaks either, but the suggestion that we all have to play pretend to be nice is vaguely offensive to me. If you want to accommodate the odd wo/man out, that's your choice. Me, I go with the plain fact: that chick is a dude.

[Boris Godunov]

So when someone is born with both sex organs, as does happen, is that a case when they get to choose the pronoun?

[Q Classic]

Q, I didn't bring up the subject of mental disorder, you did--though you referred to homosexuality as "not a mental disorder."

Yes, and I'd like you to recall the context in which I mentioned that--that being transgendered is no more a mental disorder than homosexuality is. The fact that they were listed in the DSM-IV, while technically countering my point, does not actually answer the spirit of that comment--though that's something that you readily admit here:

The truth is, what goes in the DSMs depends largely on what degree of eccentricity society is willing to tolerate; if people don't freak out around guys in dresses, it will not cause them significant distress and therefore will probably not be classified as a disorder.

the suggestion that we all have to play pretend to be nice is vaguely offensive to me.

I'm not saying that you should play pretend. I make the point earlier that you don't actually have to think of her as a woman. I was saying, however, that the reason why I think it would be respectful and considerate, is because she herself considered herself a woman, as did her family. I extended that comment into mentioning that it is somewhat disrespectful, less out of the situation with Ms. Zapata, and more out of my experiences of how that was explained to me by genderqueers and transpeople I've met.

If you want to accommodate the odd wo/man out, that's your choice. Me, I go with the plain fact: that chick is a dude.

In this case, it's not so much accommodation, but rather the simple fact that what I understand to be respectful and courteous, in this case, costs me so little, that I don't see a reason not to be. Sharing and explaining that understanding again doesn't cost me much, therefore, I don't see a reason not to share.

[Elok]

So when someone is born with both sex organs, as does happen, is that a case when they get to choose the pronoun?

I suppose so, though it's pretty moot since I understand true hermaphrodites are extremely rare; isn't there usually one full organ and one that's just vestigial or nonfunctioning?

Q, it's a matter of principle for me, not of relative effort. I'm not going to play along with somebody else's delusion. That's ridiculous and I won't do it. The bit about vampires not being real, etc. is irrelevant, since the transgendered aren't whatever sex they weren't born as any more than they are vampires, werewolves, chickens, James Bond, or whoever or whatever they may think they are.

[Jon Miller]

So when someone is born with both sex organs, as does happen, is that a case when they get to choose the pronoun?

I know that you are probably responding to Elok, but I did address that as a case where I would agree that the standard binary male/female discriptions are broken.

Probably letting such a person choose is best... since it is so rare.

JM

[Boris Godunov]

Probably letting such a person choose is best... since it is so rare.

Since that person can choose, then what the **** is the problem with letting others do so? Honestly, the resistance to the idea seems to be borne of squeamishness more than anything else.

If you meet someone, and it's a dude that feels "he's" a chick and refers to herself as a she, insisting on calling her a "he" is just being a dick, whether it's "scientifically accurate" or not.

It's technically inaccurate to call black people black (nobody has truly "black" skin) while it is accurate to call them "colored." Who here is going to do that?

[Lorizael]

Gender-neutral pronouns.

[Elok]

Well, y'see, when the term "he" is also legitimately used to describe people who really ARE "he's" it implies a certain degree of dishonesty to use the same term for pretenders, especially when the term is plainly being used to imply that its object is a member of that same set. If we're using racial examples, suppose I feel very strongly that I should have been black. I change my name to Jamal, since that "sounds more black" to me, go around in blackface and address actual black people as "my nigga." Do they have the right to feel offended or even put off, when they know I'm being perfectly sincere about it?