QUOTE(squidge @ Apr 10 2010, 05:21 PM)
I wouldn't say I was bigoted thanks e*liz, I am being technical. If I was being bigotted I would be saying that they should not be allowed to live life as a male, however I did not say that.
I work in science and it's just how I see things. It is perfectly fine to live life as the opposite sex and be identified as such, however on the genetics level, which is what my degree was mainly in, they're still technically female. You can't change that, doesn't mean you can't LIVE as the opposite sex so no, I'm not judging at all. I never said I was. Just stating facts, is all.
Why use the pronoun 'they'? Why not use the correct pronoun, 'he'? To me, that belies a real unwillingness to accept transsexuals as they are and as they want to be accepted. It's considered highly offensive, actually, in the trans community to use the incorrect or neutral pronoun.
QUOTE(Ms Leila @ Apr 11 2010, 07:23 AM)
I also think people need to be more educated about the transsexual/transgendered community. It's not as black & white as some people think.
This is very true. Squidge, do you routinely ask to check people's DNA and/or genitals before assigning them the sex you think they 'really' have, no matter how they choose to 'live?' Because there are many, many people in our community who are intersex or transsexual - and therefore their DNA may not match what it says on their birth certificate or what is in their pants might not be what you expect from looking at them clothed - but who cares? It's not yours, or anyone's business.
What Squidge's post above says to transsexual people basically, is 'I don't really believe you exist but I guess I can tolerate you.' It is very simplistic to talk about sex as being solely to do with X/Y chromosomes, DNA or genitals. We now know that sex (and I mean biological sex, not only socially defined gender although that is even more fluid) is really not as simple as You boy, You girl! Not at all. And even looking at DNA, there are more than thirty different genes which can determine sex, outside of the chromosomes. Now, this means that if you were to sort through DNA you'd have a harder time saying definitely who was genetically
male and female, and this is without even considering people who are transsexual or intersex, whose bodies and brains may not quite match what their DNA says anyway, perhaps for hormonal reasons. Estimates are that there are around 90+ sexes but we prefer to put them into one of two boxes. And honestly, when determining sex at birth, genitals are all that are taken into account when there is more to the story (and certainly for an intersex person with genitals that don't easily fit male or female, performing surgery isn't going to change the other sex characteristics not yet apparent.) This is all getting a bit off topic but I just really think that in insisting that YOU better know someone's sex based on 'science' than they do, you're erasing their identity. There is a long history of science being used to oppress and erase transgender, transsexual and intersexed people and the fact is that science is not infallible or unbiased. Plenty of scientists were happy to argue that black people are stupider, for example, and they did research and wrote papers. But we have discredited them and we now know that science can also be biased and bigoted. And the bottom line is, you do not know what Mr Montogomery's DNA says, you're making an assumption based on your belief that sex is a simple binary and doctors who see a vulva at birth are always 100% right in their assignment.
So of course, it's your right to hold the opinion that a person retains the sex they were assigned at birth regardless of what changes they make in their life, socially, hormonally or surgically.
But it's my opinon that that is definitely a form of transphobia and therefore bigotry.
QUOTE(nephthys @ Apr 11 2010, 08:17 AM)
However, legislation should be changed to allow a secondary and still accountable and accepted certificate(s) to be printed to assist people like Mr Montgomery, or in situations where there was a mistake in the details of the original certificate.
I don't think this is an unreasonable position. But I'm wondering why we need to privilege the first certificate, and privilege 'history' over the current life situation of a person. Why is the 'historical' document more important than making it a bit easier for a transperson in what is essentially a really hard road to walk? I think maybe either side could be argued here. I'm just wondering. (I mean, we presumably all have cis privilege here, so it's very easy for us to talk about secondary documents etc. as an intellectual exercise. It's not happening to us, it's not our life, we don't face this type of discrimination and the threat of violence, daily, like transpeople do.)