sorry for the long read...it's a bit rare to have anyone care to discuss something on a less superficial level around here. I think we agree on some things, not on others...
It's not complex at all. There is already a legal machinery in place for how we accomadate differences. It's called obeying the law. The rest is tribal garnish.
The law evolves though and the way we treat various group differences has changed many times. Consider that slavery and other race/ethnicity-based discrimination, child labour, and denying equal rights to women in a host of areas were all acceptable under the law at one point...but we saw fit to change that whether by actually enforcing existing law, making amendments to prior law, or enacting new law.
Homosexuality was previously labelled a mental illness and 'unnatural'. Our understanding and attitudes have evolved. Most people no longer believe that it is ok to fire someone, or deny them housing, for example, *just* because they are gay. Laws have been changed and legal protections have been extended to cover sexual orientation in many areas.
Those terms are only contreversial to those propagate the notion that it's okay to compell a person to accept the material reality of something that is observably false.
I'm curious as to how you perceive religion and the law. Whether the existence of God is 'observably false' or simply 'not demonstrably true' will be dismissed as semantics by some while remaining a crucial distinction for others...but indulge me and just grant that someone who believes in God has a 'material reality' that fundamentally differs from that of someone who does not believe in God, and that reality relies primarily (if not exclusively) on their own beliefs. Fair?
Would you say that we are immorally compelled and mentally enslaved (your terms) in being required, as a society, to acknowledge and accept the material reality of those who possess religious beliefs? Religious beliefs also convey a host of protections and obligations under the law...are they all unjust? Do we need to *participate* in their reality to simply acknowledge and accommodate it?
Further, the material reality of trans people is only deemed 'observably false' from the perspective of biology and doesn't consider that identity is more than that just biology (it results from the interplay of biology and experience), that simple categorization is inadequate to describe variation in identity, and that identity (whether racial-ethnic, gender, sexual) can form over time (and, some argue, change over time).
You misunderstand me: I'm asserting that the enitre movement is based on a false premise. I can prove that a dude isn't a chick, and can never be a chick. What the "movement" is saying is the opposite.
There is no middle ground to 2+2=4
Again, this ignores that the components are biology AND identity, by reducing the 'premise' only to biology. You can prove that a 'dude isn't a chick' from a biological perspective, but only by excluding identity from the equation. Even restricting the equation to biology, your argument ignores that genetics (part of 'biology') may be a component that shapes that gender identity, even as those components would seemingly not be compatible with all of the other biological components that result in determining biological sex. The argument is that it is not necessarily as simple as 2+2=4.
Some people play semantical games, and I have little tolerance for it. Some "anti-trans" will simply deny that a M to F trans person 'is a woman', full stop...while some in the trans movement will say that a M to F person "is a woman" and don't want any elaboration beyond that. That's dishonest on both sides (and I would suggest that most people DON'T get hung up on stopping there). OBVIOUSLY we can distinguish between a trans woman and a non-trans woman using various criteria...and there are cases where such distinction is rather important...the more interesting question is 'ok, what now?' How does society respond to this evolving concept of gender identity?
You are correct in the sense that autogenphilia, pedophilia, depression, psychosis, autism are also some of the issues that are co-morbid with people who suffer from dysphoria. But the way in which society acts to tackle the differences and troubles that anorexics face doesn't take precedents over your matertial reality. That would be insane if it did. We treat anorexics as best we can. We never enable them because it will be harmful to them. as harmful as giving a child puberty blockers or exposing them to gender theory.
Morgan Ogre is trans activist in my country. This dude had a rape crisis centre for actual woman defunded because they wouldn't allow men inside them with the women who had been raped. The he went on twitter and gloated about it. This dude has held political office, and his actions were allowed and even lauded by the provincial governent.
The extent that we are forced to acknowledge and enable the delusion of a trans person has already been codifed into our society.
We don't deny those co-morbid issues...but we do characterize them differently depending upon how they manifest, at what age, to what extent they impede healthy functioning, etc. Pedophilia has no 'positive' behavioural manifestation while autism most clearly does, for example. We won't 'enable' someone with pedophilia by prioritizing that 'reality' and will instead treat them as best we can and ensure they never act on their feelings...but that is certainly not how we treat people with autism and it shouldn't be the default position for working with someone expressing a trans identity.
Also remember that the way we perceive certain 'realities' evolves over time. Homosexuality was a diagnosed mental illness until fairly recently, while autism has undergone *tremendous* reclassification as our knowledge has evolved. Gender dysphoria has moved to gender identity disorder, and I suspect that is going to evolve further as we differentiate between different 'etiologies' of how someone arrives at a 'disconnect' between their gender identity and sex. At some point, there is going to be a better understanding of how the interplay of genetics and experiences influence trans identity, just as it has evolved (and continues to evolve) for homosexuality, racial-ethnic identity, etc.
Let me be clear in that I very much agree that there are some unique concerns associated with supporting trans identity formation, particularly in children. Inherent is the issue of puberty, which is occurring at much earlier ages than even 40-50 years ago. While some kids might have a sufficiently developed gender identity to 'know' they are trans, many others who express such feelings may not be so sure. There are plenty of example of kids of 'think' they are gay (or straight) and things change...only they aren't taking hormones to ward off puberty, for example. Having said that, those concerns have to be weighed against the consequences of allowing so many kids to go through puberty and adolescence with this disconnect unaddressed. Suicide attempts (and success), substance use, and other problems are much higher in this population. This is an extremely complex topic. The solution is continuing to have policy and practise informed by evidence-based research and for services to be delivered by properly trained clinicians...but the latter in particular is questionable in too many cases. Also, it take a long time for research to be done and for it to make it to the policy stage. What has been shown in research circles may take years (or decades) to filter down to the public consciousness.
I'm Canadian too, but unfamiliar with Oger's case, so what follows is based upon what you mention of it. IMHO, the proper approach would have been to first do pilot studies to assess whether it what ways it was beneficial, neutral, or problematic to have trans individuals integrated into a traditional rape crisis setting...then do larger studies...and then have those results inform policy. The goal is for all rape victims to receive appropriate treatment...and while integration might be an ideal scenario, it may not be the best one...so if that process did not happen, then shame on Oger and the gov't.
Often elements within a movement try to jump the gun and just advance their agenda...this doesn't mean 'the whole movement' is garbage though. It doesn't even mean that all trans people support what Oger did...and it doesn't mean that government perspectives won't change and it eventually will NOT laud someone like Oger. We need to separate acknowledging trans people from a movement that jumps the gun.
Because the whole issue is an extreme issue. A trans teacher trying to tell my niece that she might be a dude would be a HUGE issue for me, my niece.... and consequently that trans teacher. A trans person not revealing he's a dude to me if I was going to have sex with them would be a serious problem for me, and most especially for that transperson.
You should not have a trans teacher tell your niece that 'she might be a dude'...that is different than educating your niece on the existence of trans people. The key is developmentally appropriate education, which is not to be determined by that one teacher...and that teacher should be teaching according to their prescribed curriculum, which such education being handled by those who are trained and mandated to deliver it.
I will say that having sexual minority teachers be open about their status, or simply be passively visible, has been shown to prevent distress and problem behaviour (including suicide) amongst sexual minority youth and to foster a more positive school climate. So they shouldn't hide who they are (quite the contrary), but they should also realize that they don't need to preach on a pedestal either.
Being compelled to acknowledge another persons material reality is an immensity. If you don't believe me then try making a muslim eat pork ribs during Ramadan. Go explain to a child who hates vegatables that it's candy. Go scream at a lesbian who refuses to entertain the idea of having sex with a mediocre dude in a dress- cause he's a lesbian right?
There is a huge difference between compelling someone to *acknowledge* a person's material reality and compelling someone to actively *participate* in it. Acknowledging that gay people exist, and understanding what that reality entails, does not require someone to actually engage in homosexual behaviour....so the examples you give are illogical.
As said before I've talked to a few transpeople. I play their likkle passion play and even use their pronouns. No amount of twaddle can convince me that I'm talking to a woman when it's really a man. My senses scream what that person is to me. I can choose to be polite, the same way I can be polite to someone who is mentally retarded. Still doesn't mean I'm gonna eat poo because he said it's chocolate.
There is no issue to be understood here except that no person should be compelled to tiptoe around how another persons dyphoria manifests itself, nor should anyone be forced to show any reverence or deference to the cosplay of a mediocre male.
It is great that you have talked to a few trans people (which is more than most can say), and it is great that you treated them with respect by being polite, and that you went so far as to use their desired pronouns. If everyone was so decent and considerate, the world would be a much better place.
I'm not sure whether I would extrapolate from those limited experiences to the broader trans population though and I wouldn't agree with anyone who suggested that you should have done any more than you did. As I've maintained all along, no one should be compelled to *do* anything other than to acknowledge that people are different and to afford them the same rights (and obligations) under the law that they enjoy themselves. Hopefully they can be decent and considerate too, regardless of what they believe, as you were.
