Salvation Army Refuses Housing Shelter To Transgender Woman on /r/politics and quickly it turns into what if it was a black or white issue. (np.reddit.com)
SubredditDrama
44 ups - 17 downs = 27 votes
63 comments submitted at 22:47:48 on May 4, 2014 by Uriniass
This other section is quite juicy.
Can we be honest with ourselves here? They didn't want to let a man sleep in a shelter full of battered women.
http://np.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/24pa7f/salvationarmyrefuseshousingshelter_to/
^^which ^^is ^^why ^^it's ^^silly ^^to ^^turn ^^away ^^a ^^trans ^^woman.
There seems to be this scary boogieman that dresses up as a woman so that he can rape them in shelters.
Edit: No need to read below. Most likely a troll.
It's even funnier when people try to apply the 'logic' to bathrooms.
To be fair, if I were a woman who was a victim domestic abuse I'm not sure I'd feel comfortable sharing overnight sleeping quarters with someone biologically male, trans or not.
Clearly the abuse victims in that type of shelter would have suffered some psychological and physical trauma so cut them some slack.
Honestly this is the type of situation that trans advocates should really focus on. Instead of getting upset over a trans person not being allowed into a battered woman's shelter, why not work to provide an adequate support network and shelters that are accepting of trans people?
Actually... shelters are one of older targets of trans* advocacy, along with access to public facilities, and medical care. The fact is, though, a trans woman should have the right to use a woman's shelter. The fact of the matter is the there are a billion potential triggers, and it's kind of dishonest to focus on just the sex organs of the person involved. She has as much right to be there as anyone else, if not more, because she's in even greater danger if she has to sleep on the street.
Basically, I refuse to cut the shelter any slack here. They discriminated in an ultimately irrational manner and put someone at great risk in the process. I'm very much not cool with that.
Also, there are some technical issues. Shelters accepting of trans* people are great, but that means that battered women's shelters must accept trans women. That's just a matter of reality; transgender women are not sufficiently plentiful to maintain the kinds of networks that would be necessary, because such shelters must be physically close.
Basically, this is what trans* advocates fighting to maintain sufficient shelters looks like.
[deleted]
It is. It doesn't happen because it's such a stupid, convoluted plan and there are a million easier ways to be a pervert/rapist. It's probably one of the best contemporary examples of a boogeyman used to oppress a minority.
Banning women from women's areas does far more harm than good, whether they are black, gay, or transgender.
[deleted]
> Why is everybody so fucking wedded to this idea that transwomen are actually women?
Because most people aren't as big of a fucking asshole as you are.
You almost had a point, but then you answered your own question. Your entire post was rambling "why didn't someone who probably had shit lives in the past just keep doing what they were doing then." The fact that you raised the issue, and then tied it to that line of thinking is literally the only argument they need to act like they have an "objective" system.
> Why is everybody so fucking wedded to this idea that transwomen are actually women?
Because you're going to be very hard pressed to define women in a way that excludes us, but includes people you'd think of as women. Go ahead, try.
If we discuss gender under those premises then I imagine we cannot come up with a trait that is of woman and cannot be of man (ignoring sex male/female). So since we cannot find any traits that differentiate those two genders, it makes having two genders redundant.
XX chromosome?
Edit: I'm just taking you up on your challenge, I have no opinion. Rather than downvoting me, tell me where I'm wrong.
If - as is usual - we take XY chromosomes = male along with XX = female, we run into issues:
By this definition, more than one in 500 births are neither male nor female - a far more common exception than the rough estimates of one in a few thousand for transgender people. Kleinfelter Syndrome is a condition where an apparently male (in the sense of body shape and the like) is born with an extra X chromosome, making them XXY. It results from an issue during the production of egg or sperm cells, similar to the one that causes Down Syndrome (although the effects are typically less harmful in the case of Kleinfelter's). It is also possible, although much rarer, to have an apparently female child with XXY chromosomes (though it is not called Kleinfelter's, in this case). In extreme cases, you can have apparently male babies born with three (XXXY) or even four (XXXXY) X chromosomes, although this is far rarer than the more standard XXY.
Conditions like Kleinfelter's are termed intersex conditions: cases where the body has both male and female physical characteristics. There are other, stranger examples as well. The Y chromosome itself does not always cause male development. There is a specific gene on the Y called the "SRY" gene (for Sex-determining Region on the Y chromosome) that actually causes the development of testes. But this gene can be "knocked out" by a mutation, or "jump" to the X chromosome by mistake. A knockout can result in an XY female, which are typically infertile (although in one extraordinary case, an XY woman actually gave birth to an XY daughter!). A jump results in XX male syndrome, producing mostly apparently male individuals (although they are usually infertile).
Another possible condition is that of a genetic chimera - an individual with multiple genomes in their body. Typically, these result when two fertilized eggs merge in very early development (they would, otherwise, have resulted in fraternal [non-identical] twins). If one of these fertilized eggs contained XY chromosomes and the other XX, a wide variety of intersex conditions can develop. The link above for a fertile XY woman is one such example - the majority of her genome was XY, but stray XX cells allowed the development of proper ovaries. In very rare cases, both sets of gonads (ovaries and testes) can develop, resulting in true hermaphroditism.
Then we have issues where the SRY gene works, but the hormones produced by the testes can't do anything. The most extreme form is complete androgen insensitivity syndrome, resulting in a phenotype with testes and XY chromosomes but externally female genitalia, body shape, and a female identity. If a karyotype isn't done, this often isn't even noticed until puberty, where menstruation fails to the start (for lack of a uterus).
So, in short. Under that definition, a population the size of New York City is neither male nor female. Men, who identify as and appear to be women, can give birth to sons who appear to be and identify as girls. People can be - in a literal sense of their cell lines - half man and half woman. Men can not know they're men until puberty. Women can have penises. In short, taking the chromosomal definition requires acceptance of just as many counterintuitive conclusions - in a larger proportion of the population by far - as does accepting trans peoples' identification, and it does so without respecting peoples' identities or lives.
This is a great post, there an abundance of people who have an unusual number of chromosomes, and it seems like no one knows what to make of that. I don't see how this definition has counterintuitive conclusions, however. Yes it's complicated, but so is the alternative, nothing is simple. I feel like it's more logical to define their sex medically, rather than by how they identify themselves.
They can dress however they want and they can receive whatever surgery they need to feel comfortable in their bodies. Out of respect I also think they should be called by whatever pronouns they identify with. It just seems that the best way to be "defined" so to speak, is by the one permanent trait a person has, their genetic makeup.
Please call me out on this if what I said is complete BS. I don't pretend to be an expert in this subject at all.
More Comments - Click Here
So basically you include trans people as proof his definition isn't right by including people with disorders that cause them ailments because something unnatural happened? So basically transgenders are freaks of nature? That's kinda offensive.
I'm reporting the news, not making it: When people like the above say "women," what they generally using the definition that...
Coincides with what the majority of society believes to constitute a woman. Most of society believes that this is based on the person's sex at birth (as far as I know).
And this is where people usually mention intersexed people or folks with chromosomal abnormalities. The people who fall into these categories are viewed as exceptions and have a physical, external justification for assigning themselves as something other than what they were born as. They don't have to play by the same rules as most people, who will usually be born with normal genes and genitals.
A lot of times, these people don't view identity as a valid determinant of sex, or something to be respected. "If you have this and that, you are this and that regardless of your feelings on the matter." Basically physical stuff over internal feelings.
This is stuff that's easy to look up. It irritates me when both sides of this argument pretend not to understand exactly what the other side is talking about. This has been done for days.
http://i.imgur.com/15HUSNW.png
> Did people believe this thirty years ago? Did people believe this even ten years ago? Did people believe this four hundred years ago? What did "transwomen" do a hundred years ago?
What we accept as the modern concept as gender has been "bent" since humans bothered mentioning they were doing it in ancient history.
Yeah we should all just get back to the time where black people weren't actually people 400 years ago and they can just deal with it. Because you know if they could deal with it bak then they can deal with it now right? /s
I don't think this is helpful. They're wrong, but better to explain why they're wrong than to just insult.
That happens roughly 2% of the time so far. Why bother switching it up now.
Hahahahaha get the FUCK out.
At least their posts were removed.
Copypasta worthy? Or too risque?
Personally it doesn't bother me much... There are better things to worry about than if a woman believes they are a man or even if they believe they are an elf(otherkin)
Let's play "Radfem or Christian?"
/r/StormfrontorSJW
[deleted]
Wow, holy shit, when did we get the full on bigots in SRD again?
please tell me you have some screenshots you can PM me.
No, sorry.
It was super boring, though, just kinda offensive. I can PM you a summary, though, if you want.
> It was super boring, though, just kinda offensive.
k
[deleted]
Edit: This line was kinda unnecessary, given that I should have been aware the mods would intervene.
Hey, I'm warning this person, take it easy please
Yeah, you're right.
My bad.
You're wrong, unpleasant, and mean.
Hey, this shit don't fly in SRD. Keep it civil.
[deleted]
No, I'll just ban you
Then theres just more for your money
Yeah. The people jumping on them acting like they should "know" how bad that is are kind of ignoring that even if their outcome is wrong, that their logic is something that does make a kind of sense. Its not the same as people who simply do things to be actively malevolent. Yes, if it causes problems you should get them to fix it anyways, but flipping out is what breeds reactionaries.