Transgender man gives birth
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/ar...birth-son.html
Woman feels she is really a man. Woman gets surgery, takes hormones, and lives like a man. Now a transgender Man, "he" gets pregnant and gives birth to a healthy baby. Someone please explain to me why I should be required to call this person a "man", even though "he" has become pregnant and gave birth to a child. |
I guess it's a manner of context. Scientifically, you could build a pretty strong case that they're really a woman that feels like that are a man, or a woman that prefers to live as a man, or some such.
In polite company, it's probably better to use the pronoun "he" out of respect for the individuals choice. It can seem strange at times - like you mentioned, this would leave you saying things like "he gave birth to a beautiful baby girl" which can sound rather awkward. But, at least in most cases with which I am familiar, most people know the "real" by birth gender of transgenders and just look past it. For example, a coworker of mine is a woman that was born as a man. Everyone knows this, even though they refer to the person as "her" or "she" and act as if she was a woman all along. |
What's next? We had Katelyn Jenner, boldly shattering myths about women's athletic abilities by becoming the first-ever woman to win the men's Olympic Decathlon. And now we have the spectacle of a man giving birth. It is indeed a brave new world!
|
You couldn't do this skit now:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Ranb |
Quote:
If transgender men can still become pregnant and bring a healthy child to term, its simply absurd for it to be a crime for me to refer to such person as a "she". As far as I am concerned only a "she" can become pregnant and gestate a fetus. Sorry for sounding "bigoted". |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
1. Failing To Use an Individual’s Preferred Name or Pronoun The NYCHRL requires employers and covered entities to use an individual’s preferred name, pronoun and title (e.g., Ms./Mrs.) regardless of the individual’s sex assigned at birth, anatomy, gender, medical history, appearance, or the sex indicated on the individual’s identification. Examples of Violations Intentional or repeated refusal to use an individual’s preferred name, pronoun or title. For example, repeatedly calling a transgender woman “him” or “Mr.” after she has made clear which pronouns and title she uses. https://www1.nyc.gov/site/cchr/law/l...ression.page#4 The Commission can impose civil penalties up to $125,000 for violations, and up to $250,000 for violations that are the result of willful, wanton, or malicious conduct. Thankfully I do not live in New York City. |
Quote:
Examples of Violations Intentional or repeated refusal to use an individual’s preferred name, pronoun or title. For example, repeatedly calling a transgender woman “him” or “Mr.” after she has made clear which pronouns and title she uses. Refusal to use an individual’s preferred name, pronoun, or title because they do not conform to gender stereotypes. For example, calling a woman “Mr.” because her appearance is aligned with traditional gender-based stereotypes of masculinity. |
Quote:
Oh well, life goes on. |
How presumptively bigoted of this man and man to assign their biological child the gender of male without knowing its preferred gender first.
At at least there is some potentially good news for the little tike, it will someday be able to claim a victim status if it decides it's not the gender it was assigned at birth. One question though: will its whiteness overrule its status as a CAMAB (coercively assigned male at birth) on the victimhood hierarchy? |
Ninja'd by Hercules56
|
Quote:
|
A $125,000 fine for calling a transgender male co-worker a "she", will certainly deserve a hearing at the Supreme Court. One has the right to their own beliefs regarding this VERY complicated matter.
It is unreasonable to fine someone $125,000 for calling a transgender male "madam". I mean, come on folks. Let's get real. |
Quote:
Of course, the SJWs will say that this is because not using someone's prefered pronouns is dehumanising, despite the fact that such a claim is ludicrous on its face. I'd invite them to look up real dehumanising behaviours, but it'd probably require a trigger warning. The sad thing is that this all started from a real problem and with good intentions for a solution, but has blown up to ridiculous proportions. By all accounts, trans people represent 0.3% of the population, and yet if one believes some of the stuff we hear online, everybody and their mother has a peculiar sexual orientation or identity (remember Facebook's infamous list of genders?), which seems to indicate that a lot of people have prefered pronouns that have nothing to do with gender dysphoria. In their case, a fad maybe? I guess being part of what your peers see as a super-oppressed minority while at the same time being one of the most comfortable people on the planet sure helps. (This reminds me of some of the stuff in Marvel comics right now. Reading their issues, you'd think LGBTQ folk represent 70% of the population.) The sad thing is that one would hope this is an extremist position, but it's gotten pretty mainstream. |
Quote:
|
So is she the mom or dad?
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
I don't give a **** what anyone else says. Scientific facts are facts. |
Quote:
You don't have to agree with someone to be polite to them. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Now, do you believe that a fine is warranted in such a case? How much? $1,000? $500? $125,000? $1 million? How about 5 years in prison? |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
(These are honest questions. I don't know the answers.) Quote:
|
Quote:
However I don't believe its fair to require employers and co-workers to comply with the pronoun of a person's choice, under penalty of $125,000. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
And of course I don't think a fine is warranted, unless this particular behavior is part of an ongoing harrassment. Which would be a different situation, don't you think? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
It doesn't seem controversial to me that you can rack up liabilities for intentionally demeaning your employees, or for creating a workplace environment where such behavior is tolerated. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
However, evidence to the contrary notwithstanding, I don't consider it to be harrassment to call someone who looks like a guy "he/him" or who looks like a gal "she/her". |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
But I don't expect you to understand this. |
Quote:
You're drawing a line. You think some behavior, and terminology, is harrassment, and other behavior and terminology is not. Why do you draw that line where you draw it? Why not further one way or another? If you're not willing to call someone "******", are you willing to call them "fag"? What is the difference between those situations that makes you qualify them differently? |
Quote:
I understand this issue is of significant emotional importance to you, but you cannot order me under penalty of $125,000 to call a woman "sir". |
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:21 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2015-24, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.