What obligation do people have to transgender

[nahadef]

I ask this just to get some ideas from everyday people, as opposed to people deeply engaged with this question. Also, this is the only forum I'm involved in where such a general question isn't totally out of hand.

In recent years, the social demands of transexuals have increased, at least in America. Gay rights have generally been expanded to GLBT (gay/lesbian/bisexual/trans) rights. And I absolutely think they should have legal rights equal to everyone else. But, there is a contemporary political need to give them the gender pronoun they claim, versus biology. Something about this rubs me the wrong way.

I have two thoughts on this.

1) Pronouns are based on what things are, not the way you feel. Contrary arguments would be how many label boats as she, while many wouldn't. But if someone feels they identify as the opposite gender, I'm fine with a man identifying as a woman, but not with labelling him as 'she.'... Until they are living and passing as a woman. (or vice versa)

2) What hurt does it do me to refer to them as they want? I'm all for supporting people in what they personally want to do (within reason). But it feels like they are asking me to say a red apple is green, just to make them happy.

Another issue, which just might bely the kind of sites I subscribe to, that I have seen repeatedly in the last year is the need for more transgender characters in mass media. Orange is the New Black, an excellent show, had an excellent trans character. It was great. But the need? I can't see it. The trans population is a deep minority. We may as well say there is a need for good Wiccan characters. I think if there is an honesty to character, it's appropriate. But to make a mandate for it seems overreaching. I think of the proliferation of wheel chairs in the 1980's as entertainment groups wanted to show that 'disabled' people are people too, but wheel chairs were the 'best' disability for visual mediums.

So, I'm usually really liberal on most topics. But I'm trying to figure out if my qualms with this issue are based on a major lack of experience with this topic in my youth, or if it's the scientific part of me pushing me to be insensitive.

Either I'm right or I'm wrong. I'm pretty sure meat eaters like myself will look barbaric in 500 years (and so I don't defend it except as a habit of lifestyle), but I'm not so sure about this issue.

I don't think this site is automatically sensitive to this issue, but I don't think it is hostile either, so I'd love to hear some opinions (and if this is only an issue to me since my Internet life is getting stuck in an echo chamber where I hear about it too often).

 

[Hezam]

I can't imagine my self in a woman body! it would feels very weird, This is the reason behind transgenders in my opinion.They want to look like what they feel they are inside.

 

[Grandpa Frank]

My only worry was that they tell me they are a man before we get to the hotel, LOL. Unless I am a close friend to a TG (not at the moment) I never think about it (maybe it's an old age thing?) . Being more or less a hermit now days , I don't run into the issue much at all here in Maine.

Uncle Frank

 

[WonkoTheSane]

I'm happy to refer to people however they wish to be referred to. It's no skin off my back to be sensitive to their wishes and I know how important it is to have your basic self construct respected.

As to characters, the question is whether the purpose of the media is to drive social awareness and political change or entertainment. I don't care since I don't watch much tv, but I think you'll need to clear up that question before you can address whether more different people are needed in media.


Sent from my fingers using the internet.

 

[nahadef]

As to characters, the question is whether the purpose of the media is to drive social awareness and political change or entertainment. I don't care since I don't watch much tv, but I think you'll need to clear up that question before you can address whether more different people are needed in media.

Generally, the key is that mass media should be reflective of society, and when it is, it becomes a matter of social awareness.

The example of gay representation is one I've seen in my lifetime. When I was a kid, if a gay person existed on TV or in a Hollywood movie, they were very effeminate, and always celibate. Before that, they simply weren't there. That is not how being gay is. Now you have a diverse showing of gays on TV, it's more accurate, and as a result, it's driven social awareness, whether a person has any gay people in their lives or not.

So for trans people, would they need the same sort of appearances to be fairly represented? I don't have the statistics, but I'm sure they are a much lower percentage of the population than homosexuals.

By the way, the reason I started thinking about this was after reading this article, and the way the writer felt about the headstone:
The Legacy Of The "Boys Don't Cry" Hate Crime 20 Years Later

The marker — almost surely against Brandon's wishes — still displays his birth name, "Teena Brandon," with the epitaph "Daughter, Sister, Friend." Nothing to honor Brandon's identity as a transgender man, and certainly nothing to indicate that this is the final resting place of a tragic LGBT icon.

The parents in this case had chosen to remember their child as a daughter, rather than a son.

 

[WonkoTheSane]

Generally, the key is that mass media should be reflective of society, and when it is, it becomes a matter of social awareness.

To quote the Dude: Well, that's like, your opinion, man.

I'd guess producers feel differently, and advertisers also feel differently. I'd guess that they feel that mass media should be broadly appealing to consumers, and additionally it should create product desire.

I'd guess every different group feels differently about mass media. Personally, I feel there aren't enough shows about animals falling down. I've pretty well narrowed my viewing habits down to that at this stage in my life and I fully expect to become more discerning about which animals as I get older. So I'm not sure I agree with your general key.


Sent from my fingers using the internet.

 

[nahadef]

To quote the Dude: Well, that's like, your opinion, man.

I'd guess producers feel differently, and advertisers also feel differently. I'd guess that they feel that mass media should be broadly appealing to consumers, and additionally it should create product desire.

Technically, that is the producers goal, but in order to do so, they need to reflect society. When society was closeted, so was TV. As society changed, so did representation on TV. These days, being 'broadly appealing' is to have relatively balanced representations of many groups. There is still a lot of tokenism, but the celibate flaming gay is not really broadly appealing anymore.

I'm not talking about TV shows about animals, which would be considered a niche market, and not relevant to the topic of representation. There are certainly huge areas of media this wouldn't apply to. But in mainstream fiction, and even with news anchors or talk show hosts, broadly appealing is representation. Fox News would be a contrast to this trend, but their average viewership is unusually old and not really broad. Unless your definition of 'broad' is straight white Christians.

 

[WonkoTheSane]

Technically, that is the producers goal, but in order to do so, they need to reflect society.

I'd like to see data which supports the idea that reflecting society increases revenue. Without it you're just offering either opinion or conjecture.

Broadly appealing is entirely different from reflecting society.

It may be what people *want* to be true, but that doesn't make it true.

 

[nahadef]

I'd like to see data which supports the idea that reflecting society increases revenue. Without it you're just offering either opinion or conjecture.

Broadly appealing is entirely different from reflecting society.

It may be what people *want* to be true, but that doesn't make it true.

I would just watch TV and see if things are more representative now than it used to be. If it is, it is because it is profitable.

It's cold outside, but I don't need to measure it, I just need to open the window. You can call that opinion or conjecture too if you wish. Does't help the conversation.

 

[WonkoTheSane]

I didn't mean to offend you, you asked and I answered. We just seem to disagree on some things, but isn't that par for the course in any discussion?

I'd say that tv in no way represents society. TV is full of thin, pretty, young, white people living interesting lives. There's a bit of otherness in there, but only enough to sell goods, certainly not reflective of society.


Sent from my fingers using the internet.

 

[nahadef]

I didn't mean to offend you, you asked and I answered. We just seem to disagree on some things, but isn't that par for the course in any discussion?

It is par, but I'm not making a thesis out of this, so if it's going to be a matter of research and data, I'm out of the discussion.

I'd say that tv in no way represents society. TV is full of thin, pretty, young, white people living interesting lives. There's a bit of otherness in there, but only enough to sell goods, certainly not reflective of society.

This is fair to say (and I'd much rather discuss a counterpoint than a have a point niggled).

American media is still disproportionately white, but visibility is so much improved decade upon decade. I'm sure there is some fluctuation from year to year, but the difference between Leave It to Beaver and now seems to be a one-way shift toward visibility. Gay, black, Asian, Middle Eastern, disabled...

As for the underrepresentation of ugly, fat people on TV, yeah, I don't see that changing. That is an issue of broadly appealing. People generally don't want to see it.

So, my question would be, in that list of visible minorities being represented, do transgenders belong to that group? I see them as far to small a minority to require a mandate. There may as well be a mandate to have people with Tourettes or cystic fibrosis. Not to compare it to a disease, but to compare it to relatively small groups that also virtually never see themselves in mass media.

 

[WonkoTheSane]

To me everything is about research and data. That's why we don't drill holes in people's heads to let out evil spirits. I see a discussion without data as a discussion leading to no real information. But then in my field I am constantly required to justify my work based on evidence. So when someone makes a claim I generally tend to expect evidence to support it.

As to whether it would make financial sense to increase transgendered people in media, I have no idea, I don't have access to information which could guide me on that. My guess would be that the bean counters have added up the cost v. reward analysis and are comfortable with the mix they have in order to maximize profits. But that's just a guess, and any number of anthropological factors could make it a poor guess.


Sent from my fingers using the internet.

 

[nahadef]

To me everything is about research and data.

You're asking too much of a web forum.

As to whether it would make financial sense to increase transgendered people in media

That's not a question I'm asking. You might.

We can see if anyone else has an opinion.

 

[WonkoTheSane]

You're asking too much of a web forum.

That's not a question I'm asking. You might.

We can see if anyone else has an opinion.

I disagree, I think anywhere a serious discussion is taking place is an appropriate place to expect participants to support their points with facts.

In essence that's exactly what you're asking. You want to know if a "mandate" is in order. The only people in a position to issue a mandate are the monetary stakeholders, and they do so primarily out of monetary maximization.

I'm all for hearing other viewpoints too, I think it's an interesting question and I'm interested to see what others think.

 

[BrianLewis]

If you go into a doctor's office for a checkup and put male as your gender, he's probably going to check your prostate. It doesn't matter how you identify yourself as internally, biologically you are a male.

If you did the same thing, but the doctor discovers that you are a female, he is going to call for a psych consult.

Facts are facts. Those that refer to themselves as a gender that they are not are only fooling themselves. It's along the same lines as saying that the Earth is at the center of the universe; although it might make them feel good to say that, it simply is not true, and the rest of the universe probably gets a chuckle every time they say it, because of how absolutely delusional they sound.

 

[nahadef]

If you did the same thing, but the doctor discovers that you are a female, he is going to call for a psych consult.

No, they would not, because this isn't the 19th century. It puts your opinion in perspective though.

 

[BrianLewis]

Filling out medical forms incorrectly could easily result in serious problems. Any competent doctor would call for a psych consult to someone that endangers their own life in such a way.

 

[Majestic]

Interesting article and discussion.

It will be a fine day when the world can shed itself of outdated ideas that cause real harm to their fellow human beings, such as;

All transgenders must be psychologically defective
Transgenders are too stupid to discuss medical issues with their doctors

Using these as excuses to perpetuate nonacceptance (cruelty, really) on other people ought to be a thing of our distant past. The pronoun issue is a real one, at least for those languages that have gender-based pronouns, as we use physical characteristics to help us decide whether to use "he" or "she". The transgender issue is forcing us to realize that a person's sexuality and identity can be more complicated than what we can see on the outside, or, more to the point, what we imagine is lurking inside the trousers. Who am I to deny a person the right to live as the gender they believe they are hardwired to be. I'm OK with the fact that nature makes strange mistakes, and female-oriented people end up getting useless or unwanted physical attributes. If a person wants to self-identify as female, me refusing to address her as "she" just marks me as an intolerant bully.

The trick is to focus not on what is below the belt, but what is in the heart and mind. This is why the red and green apple analogy doesn't work. Our sexual identity has evolved into something more complicated than what is in the plant world. The sooner we can accept someone for the person they believe themselves to be, the better off we will all be.

This nonsense about filling out medical forms incorrectly is silliness in the extreme, as is the notion that any competent doctor will not be able to properly treat a transgender person.

Anyway, that's my two cents. Regarding the media issue, its a bit of a side issue that will (hopefully) resolve itself. Transgenders seem to be a very small sexual minority, and so I don't see a pressing need to artificially inflate a story or a news desk with a transgender (which I think would be tokenism). It took a long time for gay characters and personalities to appear on TV without them falling into stereotypes or being portrayed as comic fodder. Even Anderson Cooper took so long to come out - kind of shows me that we (sadly) still have a ways to go before we accept sexual minorities without reservation. Maybe having more LGBT roles on TV would help us achieve that equality faster, which would be a good thing. But I think it would be tough (and maybe counter-productive) to mandate it.

 

[WonkoTheSane]

It's not that long ago Brian would have been right, but a friend of mine is hosting the first drag show on a specific US Air Force base. I think if an organization that resistant to both change and alternative lifestyles allowed this to occur there's significantly more openness in general society. I wouldn't be surprised if there are still some docs out there who would call in a psych consult, but thankfully they're in the minority.

Any competently run medical facility has extensive procedures to ensure that, regardless of how forms are filled out, appropriate care is provided.


Sent from my fingers using the internet.

 

[nahadef]

It's not that long ago Brian would have been right

It's true. I used the term "the 19th century" about his claim, since that was the fact at that time. For much of the 20th, that would still be true (homosexuality was officially a mental illness until sometime in the 60's). But it's been 20-30 years since more scientifically informed ideas started spreading.

You can follow a trail of Brian's posts if you like, but I've found he tends to be on the other side of history.

 

[WonkoTheSane]

It's true. I used the term "the 19th century" about his claim, since that was the fact at that time. For much of the 20th, that would still be true (homosexuality was officially a mental illness until sometime in the 60's). But it's been 20-30 years since more scientifically informed ideas started...

Did you miss the entire rest of my post where that's essentially what I said?


Sent from my fingers using the internet.

 

[nahadef]

Did you miss the entire rest of my post where that's essentially what I said?

No. I referenced it with my first line. "It's true". I agreed.

 

[Majestic]

It's not that long ago Brian would have been right

Well, he may have been in the majority, but he still wouldn't have been right.

 

[WonkoTheSane]

Well, he may have been in the majority, but he still wouldn't have been right.

In saying that doctors would call in a psych eval?

Sure he would have been right, that's exactly what they did.


Sent from my fingers using the internet.

 

[Majestic]

No that is not at all what I was saying. What I was saying is: simply because the majority hold a certain opinion, does not make that opinion morally right.