Males can’t get pregnant so I don’t know why such an emoji would exist. It seems pointless. If your sex is male then you can’t have children this can’t be pregnant. All these gender and sex methods that are used to describe people now are so confusing. I remember when non of this really existed before and there were only men and women.
Dear lazy person:
If you can't be bothered to read what other people have written, why should we read what you wrote?
This has been extensively covered here already. You are, for certain meanings of the word "male" which are used by a large portion of the population (though not, apparently, you), simply wrong.
Lots of people remember when blacks had to sit in the back of the bus. And put up with getting killed for looking at whites the wrong way. Your memory of a simpler time doesn't make that time better, or more just. Also, what you remember amounts to a conspiracy of silence. These things existed. They were just concealed.
"Pregnant man" and "pregnant nonbinary person" are actual real-world things that happen. They exist. Sure, they're uncommon, but they are absolutely 100% real world people.
To not intentionally not include them would be incredibly bigoted.
Trans women are women. Trans men are men. Right wing nutjobs are easily offended snowflakes.
Can trans man become pregnant?
Absolutely.
Not just in principle. Any successful case?
You are conflating gender with sexual characteristics.
And, saying a 'trans man' typically would mean a female who transitioned to living as a male. So yeh, unless the person had sex reassignment surgery or the hormonal therapy disrupted her cycles, then he could become pregnant.
But all of that, I think is separate from this emoji question which suggests a biologic male becoming pregnant -- which is ridiculous.
There is no reason to assume that the Emoji suggests "a biologic male becoming pregnant". ...
I would think there is far less reason to think it is related to transsexualism.
Typically, when people see "guy" they think "guy".
But yeh, put the emoji in the right context, and it could point to trans. But even then it would be shaky -- even an insult -- because the only way it could happen would be if a biologic female who went through all the steps of transitioning to a male became pregnant -- thus undoing everything he worked for and hoped for. It would far worse than they typical insult of using the wrong gender when addressing the person.
You are simply mistaken about that. Some trans men have made that choice and have become pregnant, on purpose (use google, it's not hard to find). I think they're better equipped than you to decide what is an insult to them.
I will admit that this seemed a bit strange to me too. But then I grew up in a culture that was extremely binary. When you absorb on a deeper level what it means to be nonbinary, it makes more sense. I'm sure some trans men feel entirely male, in every sense, and would be upset at the notion of getting pregnant. But there are, obviously, some who are comfortable with an in-between state, that is more male in appearance and behavior in general, but still capable of being pregnant and bearing a child. It seems weird to me, but why should anyone else give a crap about what seems weird to me? (Why, even, should I?) It's a big world and there's room in it for everyone... as long as they don't try to run other peoples' lives.
Ahh! Good point! I was talking of transsexualism. You are speaking of non-binary. They are related, but not the same. The analogy would be: Heterosexual, homosexual and bisexual.
As for "running other people's lives":
Society always has and always will try to run other people's lives.
That is a core element of it being a society -- having rules, expectations and so on.
And that is why it is important to have discussions such as these. Sometimes the rules and expectations go too far and sometimes they don't go far enough. It's the core strength of any democracy -- which is not the absence of rules but the ability to develop good ones through open and honest discussion.
An example is a related issue in medicine that deserves discussion (what you might call running other people's lives): puberty blockers (should an adolescent or pre-adoslescent make permanent, irreversible changes in their gender and physical characteristics through hormonal modification?) . While
99.9% of those having the discussion know very little about the issue,
they still have to have it -- because they are the ones running people's
lives.
My God do you ever get tired of hearing yourself talk? Who are you to tell everyone what trans people do or do not find insulting? They are more than capable of explaining that themselves, if they so choose. For a little perspective, I suggest you read this article before posting your typical knee-jerk reactionary response…
I don't blame you for being irritated. And it's not your job to put up with irritation. But if you actually want to move the needle, be gentler. (Advice that I try to take myself, though I sometimes fail.) He, unlike others, seems to be willing to make some effort. Honey/vinegar, etc.
No, don't worry about it. He cares nothing about the issue. He just likes to troll. One of those people trying to run other people's lives through attacks and intimidation.
What a bizarre, meandering diatribe against common sense. Apple pro-actively included it
I can't even understand the point your trying to make here
There is an anti-feminist push to erase women's liberation by literally taking the term for men. Men are breaking records in women's sports. You must use she/her pronouns for men if they request it. Trans has completely eclipsed gay and lesbian liberation and women's liberation. If you don't go along with this absurd agenda, you're ostracized as "transphobic" and that reaction is so intense and ubiquitous that most people have been intimidated into silence. Women are adult human females, and trans women are men. Men are adult human males, and trans men are women. This is not hate speech. It is just stating the obvious, mundane truth. A top down push from billionaires funding trans ideology is trying to replace sex with "gender identity", a reversion to old sexist stereotypes, and gay conversion therapy, literally on steroids. It's almost successful, and has taken over liberal polite society, even when most liberals disagree completely. It sterilizes children. 40,000 girls are lined up on GoFundMe to get their healthy breasts chopped off. This is the lobotomy of our age and people in the future will wonder how we let it happen. Have you seen the "nullification surgery" for non-binaries? https://www.alignsurgical.com/gallery/gender-expansive-bottom-surgery/03/
Because it is illiberal and opposed by the vast majority, right and left, numerous forms of gaslighting and manipulation are employed to work it into the mainstream anyway. This is just another example. It only makes sense in that context.
It probably should be called “pregnant woman dressed as a man” (which is effectively male misappropriation) as we all know that it is scientifically impossible for a male to become pregnant.
It’s also scientifically impossible for a poop to have eyes and smile at you.
All the same people that are complaining about the "pregnant man" emoji are likely playing fantasy based video games on PCs and consoles and thinking nothing of it. "A pregnant man? Ridiculous! It doesn't exist! Why should I have to see something that doesn't exist on my phone/computer?? I can't believe I had to stop slaying Wyverns in the Witcher to post that!"
"Pregnant man" and "pregnant nonbinary person" are actual real-world things that happen. They exist. Sure, they're uncommon, but they are absolutely 100% real world people.
To not intentionally not include them would be incredibly bigoted.
Trans women are women. Trans men are men. Right wing nutjobs are easily offended snowflakes.
Can trans man become pregnant?
Absolutely.
Not just in principle. Any successful case?
You are conflating gender with sexual characteristics.
And, saying a 'trans man' typically would mean a female who transitioned to living as a male. So yeh, unless the person had sex reassignment surgery or the hormonal therapy disrupted her cycles, then he could become pregnant.
But all of that, I think is separate from this emoji question which suggests a biologic male becoming pregnant -- which is ridiculous.
There is no reason to assume that the Emoji suggests "a biologic male becoming pregnant". ...
I would think there is far less reason to think it is related to transsexualism.
Typically, when people see "guy" they think "guy".
But yeh, put the emoji in the right context, and it could point to trans. But even then it would be shaky -- even an insult -- because the only way it could happen would be if a biologic female who went through all the steps of transitioning to a male became pregnant -- thus undoing everything he worked for and hoped for. It would far worse than they typical insult of using the wrong gender when addressing the person.
You are simply mistaken about that. Some trans men have made that choice and have become pregnant, on purpose (use google, it's not hard to find). I think they're better equipped than you to decide what is an insult to them.
I will admit that this seemed a bit strange to me too. But then I grew up in a culture that was extremely binary. When you absorb on a deeper level what it means to be nonbinary, it makes more sense. I'm sure some trans men feel entirely male, in every sense, and would be upset at the notion of getting pregnant. But there are, obviously, some who are comfortable with an in-between state, that is more male in appearance and behavior in general, but still capable of being pregnant and bearing a child. It seems weird to me, but why should anyone else give a crap about what seems weird to me? (Why, even, should I?) It's a big world and there's room in it for everyone... as long as they don't try to run other peoples' lives.
Ahh! Good point! I was talking of transsexualism. You are speaking of non-binary. They are related, but not the same. The analogy would be: Heterosexual, homosexual and bisexual.
As for "running other people's lives":
Society always has and always will try to run other people's lives.
That is a core element of it being a society -- having rules, expectations and so on.
And that is why it is important to have discussions such as these. Sometimes the rules and expectations go too far and sometimes they don't go far enough. It's the core strength of any democracy -- which is not the absence of rules but the ability to develop good ones through open and honest discussion.
An example is a related issue in medicine that deserves discussion (what you might call running other people's lives): puberty blockers (should an adolescent or pre-adoslescent make permanent, irreversible changes in their gender and physical characteristics through hormonal modification?) . While
99.9% of those having the discussion know very little about the issue,
they still have to have it -- because they are the ones running people's
lives.
You can't separate out "trans" and "nonbinary" as two entirely separate things. They are different concepts but not exclusive concepts. So when I mentioned nonbinary, it was in the context of trans people. You were ignoring that overlap in your previous discussion.
About running other people's lives: I don't agree with your characterization. It's not universally accepted that society should dictate how people live. There is a strong current on both the right and left in the USA (and, I think, many other places) of "leave me alone" or, as often stated, "don't tread on me". This current has muddied political waters rather severely in recent years, but it is still a classic liberal position to say "society should place no restriction on anyone, except to the extent necessary to protect others". And of course that sets up classic fights over topics such as abortion, where anti-abortionists claim the same position, but applying it to "the unborn" (that is, they are the "others" that need to be protected).
More recently conservatives have claimed this position (along with some related flags, etc.). I have only bad things to say about this so I'll refrain from saying anything, so as not to shift the topic of discussion.
My point is that you can not accept as a baseline that society will mandate how we live our lives. Many of us are unwilling to allow that, except to the extent necessary to keep the peace.
As for your choice of example, puberty blockers: It's very similar to the abortion debate, because where justice lies depends on whether you are willing to arrogate to yourself the right to speak for others who can't speak for themselves - or, in this case, who are not yet allowed to speak for themselves. I would agree that it's a very thorny issue, and again say no more as our current topic is messy enough.
My God do you ever get tired of hearing yourself talk? Who are you to tell everyone what trans people do or do not find insulting? They are more than capable of explaining that themselves, if they so choose. For a little perspective, I suggest you read this article before posting your typical knee-jerk reactionary response…
I don't blame you for being irritated. And it's not your job to put up with irritation. But if you actually want to move the needle, be gentler. (Advice that I try to take myself, though I sometimes fail.) He, unlike others, seems to be willing to make some effort. Honey/vinegar, etc.
No, don't worry about it. He cares nothing about the issue. He just likes to troll. One of those people trying to run other people's lives through attacks and intimidation.
Actually, I've fairly certain they *do* care about it. But they are angry, and most likely damaged from getting the sh*t end of the stick all their life- or close to someone for whom that's true.
Sometimes, you're just angry, and being persuasive just isn't on the agenda that day. I get that... I've been there.
All the same people that are complaining about the "pregnant man" emoji are likely playing fantasy based video games on PCs and consoles and thinking nothing of it. "A pregnant man? Ridiculous! It doesn't exist! Why should I have to see something that doesn't exist on my phone/computer?? I can't believe I had to stop slaying Wyverns in the Witcher to post that!"
The whole controversy is around the vagueness of the terms man and woman. When someone asks 'are trans women, women', this is two separate questions with fairly objective and consistent answers:
- are trans women biological women? No. - can trans women look like women? Yes.
To ask these two questions as a single question is to make people choose between biological sex and gender identity as the legally defining identity for a person and they both have far reaching consequences. There was a trans man who gave birth but was legally registered as the child's mother on the birth certificate. This person stopped taking testosterone to allow for the pregnancy:
Caitlyn Jenner is currently regarded as a woman but isn't their children's mother, she is their father. Some parts of the world are changing language like using terms birth parent, person who is pregnant, person who menstruates etc and there are women who don't want their biological identity removed.
Clearly this person looks male so in most social circumstances, it makes more sense for him to be identified by his gender identity. If someone walks into the ladies room with a beard, most people would try to stop them. But when that same person is pushing a baby out of his uterus (even these phrases sound wrong - right-click on the word uterus for the definition), it's very hard for people to accept their identity as male.
There was a case recently about a trans woman in a female spa and the other women left the spa to complain, where they got some abuse from other people saying they were being transphobic. That trans woman has been charged with indecent exposure for exposing themselves to young girls:
It's not clear how a pre-op trans woman could ever not be charged with indecent exposure in that case.
When people are arguing about whether there can be a pregnant man, they aren't saying pregnant trans men can't exist, they are saying that the act of pregnancy makes them female and is the more important identity because it's what allows the pregnancy to take place.
Some people think this issue will be like gay rights and will just take time to resolve but this issue will be controversial until the end of time because there will never be a consensus on whether biological or gender identity is the more important one in every circumstance.
While a cartoon emoji is a trivial thing, it's not like a unicorn because trans men do exist and it represents the choice to put gender identity ahead of biological identity and not everyone is in agreement with that. Clearly the person above is who the emoji represents.
All the same people that are complaining about the "pregnant man" emoji are likely playing fantasy based video games on PCs and consoles and thinking nothing of it. "A pregnant man? Ridiculous! It doesn't exist! Why should I have to see something that doesn't exist on my phone/computer?? I can't believe I had to stop slaying Wyverns in the Witcher to post that!"
The whole controversy is around the vagueness of the terms man and woman. When someone asks 'are trans women, women', this is two separate questions with fairly objective and consistent answers:
- are trans women biological women? No. - can trans women look like women? Yes.
To ask these two questions as a single question is to make people choose between biological sex and gender identity as the legally defining identity for a person and they both have far reaching consequences. There was a trans man who gave birth but was legally registered as the child's mother on the birth certificate. This person stopped taking testosterone to allow for the pregnancy:
Caitlyn Jenner is currently regarded as a woman but isn't their children's mother, she is their father. Some parts of the world are changing language like using terms birth parent, person who is pregnant, person who menstruates etc and there are women who don't want their biological identity removed.
Clearly this person looks male so in most social circumstances, it makes more sense for him to be identified by his gender identity. If someone walks into the ladies room with a beard, most people would try to stop them. But when that same person is pushing a baby out of his uterus (even these phrases sound wrong - right-click on the word uterus for the definition), it's very hard for people to accept their identity as male.
There was a case recently about a trans woman in a female spa and the other women left the spa to complain, where they got some abuse from other people saying they were being transphobic. That trans woman has been charged with indecent exposure for exposing themselves to young girls:
It's not clear how a pre-op trans woman could ever not be charged with indecent exposure in that case.
When people are arguing about whether there can be a pregnant man, they aren't saying pregnant trans men can't exist, they are saying that the act of pregnancy makes them female and is the more important identity because it's what allows the pregnancy to take place.
Some people think this issue will be like gay rights and will just take time to resolve but this issue will be controversial until the end of time because there will never be a consensus on whether biological or gender identity is the more important one in every circumstance.
While a cartoon emoji is a trivial thing, it's not like a unicorn because trans men do exist and it represents the choice to put gender identity ahead of biological identity and not everyone is in agreement with that. Clearly the person above is who the emoji represents.
But most trans women don't look like women if naked.
Marvin said: While a cartoon emoji is a trivial thing, it's not like a unicorn because trans men do exist and it represents the choice to put gender identity ahead of biological identity and not everyone is in agreement with that. Clearly the person above is who the emoji represents.
Do trans men really exist to people opposing an emoji? IMO, probably not. Ignorance = denial. Example: conservatives typically attempt to argue that people are choosing to be trans and that they can be "cured" through some type of religious counseling.
All the same people that are complaining about the "pregnant man" emoji are likely playing fantasy based video games on PCs and consoles and thinking nothing of it. "A pregnant man? Ridiculous! It doesn't exist! Why should I have to see something that doesn't exist on my phone/computer?? I can't believe I had to stop slaying Wyverns in the Witcher to post that!"
The whole controversy is around the vagueness of the terms man and woman. When someone asks 'are trans women, women', this is two separate questions with fairly objective and consistent answers:
- are trans women biological women? No. - can trans women look like women? Yes.
To ask these two questions as a single question is to make people choose between biological sex and gender identity as the legally defining identity for a person and they both have far reaching consequences. There was a trans man who gave birth but was legally registered as the child's mother on the birth certificate. This person stopped taking testosterone to allow for the pregnancy:
Caitlyn Jenner is currently regarded as a woman but isn't their children's mother, she is their father. Some parts of the world are changing language like using terms birth parent, person who is pregnant, person who menstruates etc and there are women who don't want their biological identity removed.
Clearly this person looks male so in most social circumstances, it makes more sense for him to be identified by his gender identity. If someone walks into the ladies room with a beard, most people would try to stop them. But when that same person is pushing a baby out of his uterus (even these phrases sound wrong - right-click on the word uterus for the definition), it's very hard for people to accept their identity as male.
There was a case recently about a trans woman in a female spa and the other women left the spa to complain, where they got some abuse from other people saying they were being transphobic. That trans woman has been charged with indecent exposure for exposing themselves to young girls:
It's not clear how a pre-op trans woman could ever not be charged with indecent exposure in that case.
When people are arguing about whether there can be a pregnant man, they aren't saying pregnant trans men can't exist, they are saying that the act of pregnancy makes them female and is the more important identity because it's what allows the pregnancy to take place.
Some people think this issue will be like gay rights and will just take time to resolve but this issue will be controversial until the end of time because there will never be a consensus on whether biological or gender identity is the more important one in every circumstance.
While a cartoon emoji is a trivial thing, it's not like a unicorn because trans men do exist and it represents the choice to put gender identity ahead of biological identity and not everyone is in agreement with that. Clearly the person above is who the emoji represents.
All true!
Particularly the part about the vagueness of language. I don't know about eastern or mideastern languages, but all western languages divide into binary "is it male or is it female" divisions. There are a few exceptions, such as "they" in English. But Spanish even divides inanimate objects into male & female.
All of which makes discussion and therefor understanding very difficult and confused.
Unfortunately though these are very important discussions because the questions not only have always been with us but always will. We can ignore the questions, but that doesn't make them go away.
As an aside, awhile back I saw a play called "translations" and it was about how, after England had conquered Ireland they went about renaming all of the places in Ireland from their Gaelic names. The thinking was that by eliminating the words, they eliminated the culture. Maybe that is why our western languages leave no room for anything but male & female: If there is no word for it, then it ceases to exist. (Except it does exist!).
All the same people that are complaining about the "pregnant man" emoji are likely playing fantasy based video games on PCs and consoles and thinking nothing of it. "A pregnant man? Ridiculous! It doesn't exist! Why should I have to see something that doesn't exist on my phone/computer?? I can't believe I had to stop slaying Wyverns in the Witcher to post that!"
The whole controversy is around the vagueness of the terms man and woman. When someone asks 'are trans women, women', this is two separate questions with fairly objective and consistent answers:
- are trans women biological women? No. - can trans women look like women? Yes.
To ask these two questions as a single question is to make people choose between biological sex and gender identity as the legally defining identity for a person and they both have far reaching consequences. There was a trans man who gave birth but was legally registered as the child's mother on the birth certificate. This person stopped taking testosterone to allow for the pregnancy:
Caitlyn Jenner is currently regarded as a woman but isn't their children's mother, she is their father. Some parts of the world are changing language like using terms birth parent, person who is pregnant, person who menstruates etc and there are women who don't want their biological identity removed.
Clearly this person looks male so in most social circumstances, it makes more sense for him to be identified by his gender identity. If someone walks into the ladies room with a beard, most people would try to stop them. But when that same person is pushing a baby out of his uterus (even these phrases sound wrong - right-click on the word uterus for the definition), it's very hard for people to accept their identity as male.
There was a case recently about a trans woman in a female spa and the other women left the spa to complain, where they got some abuse from other people saying they were being transphobic. That trans woman has been charged with indecent exposure for exposing themselves to young girls:
It's not clear how a pre-op trans woman could ever not be charged with indecent exposure in that case.
When people are arguing about whether there can be a pregnant man, they aren't saying pregnant trans men can't exist, they are saying that the act of pregnancy makes them female and is the more important identity because it's what allows the pregnancy to take place.
Some people think this issue will be like gay rights and will just take time to resolve but this issue will be controversial until the end of time because there will never be a consensus on whether biological or gender identity is the more important one in every circumstance.
While a cartoon emoji is a trivial thing, it's not like a unicorn because trans men do exist and it represents the choice to put gender identity ahead of biological identity and not everyone is in agreement with that. Clearly the person above is who the emoji represents.
But most trans women don't look like women if naked.
I personally know trans women who have had sex with men -- and the man never suspected. But most seem to be heterosexual (or is it homosexual? I'm confused!)
In any case:
There are a lot of trans women working in prostitution and numerous reports of trans women being beaten and murdered because the guy was deceived.
No, don't worry about it. He cares nothing about the issue. He just likes to troll. One of those people trying to run other people's lives through attacks and intimidation.
Actually, I've fairly certain they *do* care about it. But they are angry, and most likely damaged from getting the sh*t end of the stick all their life- or close to someone for whom that's true.
Sometimes, you're just angry, and being persuasive just isn't on the agenda that day. I get that... I've been there.
Yeh, probably. But not this one. He hates me and trolls me every chance he gets. If I said I liked vanilla ice cream he would find something about that to attack me with.
"Pregnant man" and "pregnant nonbinary person" are actual real-world things that happen. They exist. Sure, they're uncommon, but they are absolutely 100% real world people.
To not intentionally not include them would be incredibly bigoted.
Trans women are women. Trans men are men. Right wing nutjobs are easily offended snowflakes.
Can trans man become pregnant?
Absolutely.
Not just in principle. Any successful case?
You are conflating gender with sexual characteristics.
And, saying a 'trans man' typically would mean a female who transitioned to living as a male. So yeh, unless the person had sex reassignment surgery or the hormonal therapy disrupted her cycles, then he could become pregnant.
But all of that, I think is separate from this emoji question which suggests a biologic male becoming pregnant -- which is ridiculous.
There is no reason to assume that the Emoji suggests "a biologic male becoming pregnant". ...
I would think there is far less reason to think it is related to transsexualism.
Typically, when people see "guy" they think "guy".
But yeh, put the emoji in the right context, and it could point to trans. But even then it would be shaky -- even an insult -- because the only way it could happen would be if a biologic female who went through all the steps of transitioning to a male became pregnant -- thus undoing everything he worked for and hoped for. It would far worse than they typical insult of using the wrong gender when addressing the person.
You are simply mistaken about that. Some trans men have made that choice and have become pregnant, on purpose (use google, it's not hard to find). I think they're better equipped than you to decide what is an insult to them.
I will admit that this seemed a bit strange to me too. But then I grew up in a culture that was extremely binary. When you absorb on a deeper level what it means to be nonbinary, it makes more sense. I'm sure some trans men feel entirely male, in every sense, and would be upset at the notion of getting pregnant. But there are, obviously, some who are comfortable with an in-between state, that is more male in appearance and behavior in general, but still capable of being pregnant and bearing a child. It seems weird to me, but why should anyone else give a crap about what seems weird to me? (Why, even, should I?) It's a big world and there's room in it for everyone... as long as they don't try to run other peoples' lives.
Ahh! Good point! I was talking of transsexualism. You are speaking of non-binary. They are related, but not the same. The analogy would be: Heterosexual, homosexual and bisexual.
As for "running other people's lives":
Society always has and always will try to run other people's lives.
That is a core element of it being a society -- having rules, expectations and so on.
And that is why it is important to have discussions such as these. Sometimes the rules and expectations go too far and sometimes they don't go far enough. It's the core strength of any democracy -- which is not the absence of rules but the ability to develop good ones through open and honest discussion.
An example is a related issue in medicine that deserves discussion (what you might call running other people's lives): puberty blockers (should an adolescent or pre-adoslescent make permanent, irreversible changes in their gender and physical characteristics through hormonal modification?) . While
99.9% of those having the discussion know very little about the issue,
they still have to have it -- because they are the ones running people's
lives.
You can't separate out "trans" and "nonbinary" as two entirely separate things. They are different concepts but not exclusive concepts. So when I mentioned nonbinary, it was in the context of trans people. You were ignoring that overlap in your previous discussion.
About running other people's lives: I don't agree with your characterization. It's not universally accepted that society should dictate how people live. There is a strong current on both the right and left in the USA (and, I think, many other places) of "leave me alone" or, as often stated, "don't tread on me". This current has muddied political waters rather severely in recent years, but it is still a classic liberal position to say "society should place no restriction on anyone, except to the extent necessary to protect others". And of course that sets up classic fights over topics such as abortion, where anti-abortionists claim the same position, but applying it to "the unborn" (that is, they are the "others" that need to be protected).
More recently conservatives have claimed this position (along with some related flags, etc.). I have only bad things to say about this so I'll refrain from saying anything, so as not to shift the topic of discussion.
My point is that you can not accept as a baseline that society will mandate how we live our lives. Many of us are unwilling to allow that, except to the extent necessary to keep the peace.
As for your choice of example, puberty blockers: It's very similar to the abortion debate, because where justice lies depends on whether you are willing to arrogate to yourself the right to speak for others who can't speak for themselves - or, in this case, who are not yet allowed to speak for themselves. I would agree that it's a very thorny issue, and again say no more as our current topic is messy enough.
We disagree on that: while trans and non-binary are part of the same community, I do not think they are the same.
We also disagree on society "mandating" or "dictating" how people live. Generally it sets up guidelines and guardrails of what is acceptable behavior. Unfortunately some of those guidelines have become hard and fast rules often based on the Old Testament Bible -- and yes, those guidelines are accepted by many without doubt or question as mandates and dictates passed down by God himself.
Fortunately we are progressing out of that nonsense slowly, very slowly, but surely.
It is our job to help mankind (there's that binary language again!) progress. From a religious point of view: I can't imagine Jesus condemning a trans person like many of his so called followers do. He would in fact, I believe, be supporting and defending them from persecution.
You are a good advocate for a community that sorely needs good advocates. Keep up the good work!
"Pregnant man" and "pregnant nonbinary person" are actual real-world things that happen. They exist. Sure, they're uncommon, but they are absolutely 100% real world people.
To not intentionally not include them would be incredibly bigoted.
Trans women are women. Trans men are men. Right wing nutjobs are easily offended snowflakes.
Can trans man become pregnant?
Absolutely.
Not just in principle. Any successful case?
You are conflating gender with sexual characteristics.
And, saying a 'trans man' typically would mean a female who transitioned to living as a male. So yeh, unless the person had sex reassignment surgery or the hormonal therapy disrupted her cycles, then he could become pregnant.
But all of that, I think is separate from this emoji question which suggests a biologic male becoming pregnant -- which is ridiculous.
There is no reason to assume that the Emoji suggests "a biologic male becoming pregnant". ...
I would think there is far less reason to think it is related to transsexualism.
Typically, when people see "guy" they think "guy".
But yeh, put the emoji in the right context, and it could point to trans. But even then it would be shaky -- even an insult -- because the only way it could happen would be if a biologic female who went through all the steps of transitioning to a male became pregnant -- thus undoing everything he worked for and hoped for. It would far worse than they typical insult of using the wrong gender when addressing the person.
You are simply mistaken about that. Some trans men have made that choice and have become pregnant, on purpose (use google, it's not hard to find). I think they're better equipped than you to decide what is an insult to them.
I will admit that this seemed a bit strange to me too. But then I grew up in a culture that was extremely binary. When you absorb on a deeper level what it means to be nonbinary, it makes more sense. I'm sure some trans men feel entirely male, in every sense, and would be upset at the notion of getting pregnant. But there are, obviously, some who are comfortable with an in-between state, that is more male in appearance and behavior in general, but still capable of being pregnant and bearing a child. It seems weird to me, but why should anyone else give a crap about what seems weird to me? (Why, even, should I?) It's a big world and there's room in it for everyone... as long as they don't try to run other peoples' lives.
Ahh! Good point! I was talking of transsexualism. You are speaking of non-binary. They are related, but not the same. The analogy would be: Heterosexual, homosexual and bisexual.
As for "running other people's lives":
Society always has and always will try to run other people's lives.
That is a core element of it being a society -- having rules, expectations and so on.
And that is why it is important to have discussions such as these. Sometimes the rules and expectations go too far and sometimes they don't go far enough. It's the core strength of any democracy -- which is not the absence of rules but the ability to develop good ones through open and honest discussion.
An example is a related issue in medicine that deserves discussion (what you might call running other people's lives): puberty blockers (should an adolescent or pre-adoslescent make permanent, irreversible changes in their gender and physical characteristics through hormonal modification?) . While
99.9% of those having the discussion know very little about the issue,
they still have to have it -- because they are the ones running people's
lives.
You can't separate out "trans" and "nonbinary" as two entirely separate things. They are different concepts but not exclusive concepts. So when I mentioned nonbinary, it was in the context of trans people. You were ignoring that overlap in your previous discussion.
About running other people's lives: I don't agree with your characterization. It's not universally accepted that society should dictate how people live. There is a strong current on both the right and left in the USA (and, I think, many other places) of "leave me alone" or, as often stated, "don't tread on me". This current has muddied political waters rather severely in recent years, but it is still a classic liberal position to say "society should place no restriction on anyone, except to the extent necessary to protect others". And of course that sets up classic fights over topics such as abortion, where anti-abortionists claim the same position, but applying it to "the unborn" (that is, they are the "others" that need to be protected).
More recently conservatives have claimed this position (along with some related flags, etc.). I have only bad things to say about this so I'll refrain from saying anything, so as not to shift the topic of discussion.
My point is that you can not accept as a baseline that society will mandate how we live our lives. Many of us are unwilling to allow that, except to the extent necessary to keep the peace.
As for your choice of example, puberty blockers: It's very similar to the abortion debate, because where justice lies depends on whether you are willing to arrogate to yourself the right to speak for others who can't speak for themselves - or, in this case, who are not yet allowed to speak for themselves. I would agree that it's a very thorny issue, and again say no more as our current topic is messy enough.
We disagree on that: while trans and non-binary are part of the same community, I do not think they are the same. [...]
I disagree that we disagree :-) - see what my text started with: "They are different concepts but not exclusive concepts." In other words, not the same, but there is overlap (and probably a lot).
Some people think this issue will be like gay rights and will just take time to resolve but this issue will be controversial until the end of time because there will never be a consensus on whether biological or gender identity is the more important one in every circumstance.
I think you missed what I wrote a couple days ago here.
It will likely NOT be until the end of time, because technology will catch up with this problem and render it moot. As long as we don't destroy ourselves first (nukes, climate change, etc.), we're likely to have perfect functional sex-changes, within the lifetime of many (most?) reading this site. Not to mention horns, tails, gills, extra limbs, etc. When bodies and sex become that fluid, I expect it's going to get harder to motivate people to hate based on sex. A lot of that energy will probably be directed against people taking on animal characteristics. Because while humans progress, we also like our petty moralizing and religious narrowmindedness. :-(
Comments
No, don't worry about it. He cares nothing about the issue. He just likes to troll. One of those people trying to run other people's lives through attacks and intimidation.
Because it is illiberal and opposed by the vast majority, right and left, numerous forms of gaslighting and manipulation are employed to work it into the mainstream anyway. This is just another example. It only makes sense in that context.
- are trans women biological women? No.
- can trans women look like women? Yes.
To ask these two questions as a single question is to make people choose between biological sex and gender identity as the legally defining identity for a person and they both have far reaching consequences. There was a trans man who gave birth but was legally registered as the child's mother on the birth certificate. This person stopped taking testosterone to allow for the pregnancy:
https://www.menshealth.com/sex-women/a29247727/freddy-mcconnell-trans-man-birth-not-registered-father/
Caitlyn Jenner is currently regarded as a woman but isn't their children's mother, she is their father. Some parts of the world are changing language like using terms birth parent, person who is pregnant, person who menstruates etc and there are women who don't want their biological identity removed.
Clearly this person looks male so in most social circumstances, it makes more sense for him to be identified by his gender identity. If someone walks into the ladies room with a beard, most people would try to stop them. But when that same person is pushing a baby out of his uterus (even these phrases sound wrong - right-click on the word uterus for the definition), it's very hard for people to accept their identity as male.
There was a case recently about a trans woman in a female spa and the other women left the spa to complain, where they got some abuse from other people saying they were being transphobic. That trans woman has been charged with indecent exposure for exposing themselves to young girls:
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-09-02/indecent-exposure-charges-filed-trans-woman-spa
It's not clear how a pre-op trans woman could ever not be charged with indecent exposure in that case.
When people are arguing about whether there can be a pregnant man, they aren't saying pregnant trans men can't exist, they are saying that the act of pregnancy makes them female and is the more important identity because it's what allows the pregnancy to take place.
Some people think this issue will be like gay rights and will just take time to resolve but this issue will be controversial until the end of time because there will never be a consensus on whether biological or gender identity is the more important one in every circumstance.
While a cartoon emoji is a trivial thing, it's not like a unicorn because trans men do exist and it represents the choice to put gender identity ahead of biological identity and not everyone is in agreement with that. Clearly the person above is who the emoji represents.
All true!
Yeh, probably. But not this one. He hates me and trolls me every chance he gets. If I said I liked vanilla ice cream he would find something about that to attack me with.