Comic Discussion > QUESTIONABLE CONTENT

WCDT Strips 3506 to 3510 (19 June to 23 June 2017)

<< < (41/48) > >>

Storel:
Panel 5: Clinton tells Brun "your advice is always welcome!"

But in panel 3, Brun's advice was to ask his sister for dating advice, and he spent two panels rejecting that advice...

Dandi Andi:
Wow. I come back after a day to find that trans issues have become a contentious topic of debate. Please allow me, then, to clarify my earlier position.

Just a heads up because I'm new and not totally clear on what is or is not acceptable in this community, I will probably mention genitals at some point. And I mention rape once. So content warning if you need it.

My "Hear! Hear!" comment was directed at the notion that Marten should not be lauded for treating his girlfriend well in light of her being a trans woman. Treating her with respect should be the default. Her being a trans woman does not lower the standard by which she should be treated. I apologize if I got my hackles up unduly, but the qualifier "in a relationship that most men would find difficult to even conceive of having." makes it sound like Marten's behavior is made more commendable because Claire is trans; that Claire should expect less in a relationship than a cis woman should. Perhaps it was not intended that way, but I get a lot of flack from people who do mean it that way. I've grown a little defensive about it.

As far as not wanting to date a trans person? Well, there are valid reasons and there are shitty reasons.

I totally understand someone saying "Oh, you're a woman but you have a penis? I'm sorry, but I'm looking for a romantic partner who is also a sexual partner and I'm just not at all into penis sex. I think we're better off seeking romance elsewhere." I get that. It sucks, but I get it. Sexual compatibility is important in many relationships and genitals play a part in that compatibility.

Saying "Oh, you're trans and therefore infertile/not fertile with me? I'm sorry, but I'm really looking for someone to have children with and I'm not interested in adoption. I think we're better off seeking romance elsewhere." That's totally fine. Again, it sucks, but I get it. There's nothing transphobic about that.

I can even see room for the argument of "I'm emotionally ill equipped to handle the societally imposed consequences of dating a trans person.  I wouldn't be able to provide the emotional support necessary in that context and would be a terrible partner because of it." I can absolutely see where someone would disagree with me on that point, though. I'd be happy to listen to counterpoints as I am keen to be proven wrong.

But not dating trans people as a matter of principle, to say "I wouldn't date a trans person because trans people just kind of skeeve me out." absolutely is transphobic. That's isolating and othering trans people for no reason other than being trans. Sure, it isn't actively hostile, but it adds to the list of things that we deal with just because we're trans. And I understand that being called transphobic because of it sucks. It's not like they think (as Vice President Pence does) that I need to be "cured" with electroconvulsive therapy. Yes, they find "corrective rape" and "pray the gay away" camps just as disgusting as I do. There is a real and meaningful difference between WBC and someone who doesn't want to date trans people and it is important to recognize that. But othering me in more subtle ways still hurts. It's the background radiation of my life. Please don't act like it doesn't.

Tova:

--- Quote from: Storel on 22 Jun 2017, 21:25 ---Panel 5: Clinton tells Brun "your advice is always welcome!"

But in panel 3, Brun's advice was to ask his sister for dating advice, and he spent two panels rejecting that advice...

--- End quote ---

It's almost as though Clinton said that in panel 5 because Brun is pretty.  :roll:

BenRG:
I think that this is the most revealing conversation that Clinton has ever had with Brun in many ways.

We can see Brun's insecurity. She's aware that she doesn't always pick up on non-verbal cues and she's worried that she's overstepped some boundary with Clinton, based on the fact that he doesn't always appreciate advice (and, in fact, has got very angry with Claire about it on occasion).

Then we see the fact that Clinton is very nicely human. Brun is right in that our feelings towards someone affects our approach to them. However, Clinton is, in the end, a nice guy. He certainly doesn't want Brun to think that he appreciates her advice merely because he finds her attractive and that makes him subconsciously more likely to agree with her! :wink: :lol:

An alternative interpretation is that he doesn't want to come across as the creep who will agree with anything Brun says so long as it gets her in bed with him. However, I don't know if Brun would necessarily be aware of that option; I suspect that such a blatantly false personal reality would be hard for her to visualise.

ZoeB:

--- Quote from: Buggman on 22 Jun 2017, 13:26 ---
--- Quote from: emsilly on 22 Jun 2017, 12:36 ---Please take a step back and consider what you are saying. Your comment implicitly categorises trans women into a distinct category from women as a whole.

--- End quote ---

With all respect, they ARE. That's not to say that trans people shouldn't be treated with love and respect, but there is a world of difference between being born female and receiving surgical and hormonal treatments to adopt an outwardly female body.

--- End quote ---

Oh r e a l l y

Why? I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm not crticising either you or your view. I'm asking why you think that, given what we know of the biology of sex and gender.

If I may quote from a recent submission to the SCOTUS on the subject:


--- Quote ---Petitioner maintains that the word “sex” in Title IX must refer only to an Individual’s so-called “physiological” sex, rather than the sex with which an individual identifies and lives every day. This is so, Petitioner argues, because “physiological” sex—purportedly unlike gender identity—is binary, objective, and self-evident. The intersex youth for whom amici advocate are a living refutation of this argument.

    Petitioner’s simplistic view of “physiological” sex is demonstrably inaccurate as a matter of human biology. Moreover, it demeans many thousands of intersex youth by erasing their bodies and lives and placing them outside the recognition of the law. Physicians who treat individuals with intersex traits recognize that the key determinant of how individuals navigate sex designations in their lives is their gender identity—their internal sense of belonging to a particular gender.
...
Notably, the legal system has struggled for decades to answer the definitional question that Petitioner simply begs. By the time Title IX was enacted, courts well recognized that “(t)here are several criteria or standards which may be relevant in determining the sex of an individual.”
    M.T. v. J.T., 355 A.2d 204, 206–08 (N.J. App. Div. 1976) (listing chromosomes, external genitalia, gonads, secondary sex characteristics, and hormones, as well as gender identity).

     Commentators have noted the “variability of standards that courts employ” in making such determinations.

     Even courts in the same jurisdiction have disagreed about how to determine sex when physiological features do not align.

         Petitioner and its amici also assert that “physiological” sex has the virtue of being an “objective” classification. Pet. Br. at 32; McHugh Br. at 3–6, 12–13.

    Gender identity, they suggest, is “fuzzy and mercurial,” id. at 8, while “physiological” sex simply is. But the foregoing discussion should make clear that this assertion is similarly flawed. An intersex student’s "physiological” sex may depend entirely on which Physiological trait one chooses to privilege. Indeed, because of the diversity of medical perspectives, trained experts can and do disagree on the “correct” sex to assign to an intersex child.

    Interpreting “sex” to refer to a student’s gender identity would avoid (or at least mitigate) these problems. Unlike “physiological” sex, all parties appear to agree on what gender identity means: it is “[an] individual’s ‘innate sense of being male or female.’” Pet. Br. at 36; cf. Resp. Br. at 2 (similar). It is not subject to competing definitions depending on which expert or court is consulted. Moreover, unlike “physiological” sex, a student’s gender identity by definition cannot be subject to differences in medical opinion: each student is the ultimate arbiter of their own gender identity, as they (and they alone) experience it first-hand.
--- End quote ---

What do you mean "born female"? Consider a newborn with the 46,XX chromosomes most women have, a functional reproductive system that will, when they are old enough, be capable of successfully conceiving and carrying children, but who has to have "surgical and hormonal treatments to adopt an outwardly female body."

What about someone with 3BHSD or MGD who naturally changes - often incompletely - so they have an "outwardly female body" even without surgery or hormones? Does it matter if the change happens, as it usually does, in the womb before birth, or afterwards? Does it matter if the change is incomplete, so surgery and/or hormones are needed to complete it?

You wouldn't be the only one to privilege one Physiological trait over others - appearance at birth - in deciding whether someone is "born female" or not. Some competent medical authorities and experts still do that, even now. I'm not sayng you're wrong. I'm asking why.

Is there a "world of difference" between blonde humans who have a mutant gene for that and other humans, most of whom have dark hair? What about left-handed humans who are neurologically distinct from the vast majority of other humans, are they "not born human"?  I really, really doubt that you think so in either case. But if not, why not?

If someone said "That's not to say that blonde/lefthanded people shouldn't be treated with love and respect but.." how would you view that? Would you say that viewing them as fundamentally different from normal humans is consistent with the respect you believe they deserve, or is it sorta contradictory, even if not intended to be?

A personal note, not that I like talking about it, but sometimes it's needed for informational, educational purposes. My own appearance was more M than F at birth. That changed, normalised, later. Mostly. About 80%. I opted for surgery and Hormones to complete the change, giving me an "outwardly female body". Inwardly, still a bit of a mix, with much scar tissue from the unconsented removal of dysfunctional, atrophied or never developed organs, but outwardly, female yes, completely rather than mostly.

Neither the surgery, nor the hormones, nor the natural change before them had any effect on the fact that I was "born female" as you put it. Or *not* born female if you ignore most of my anatomy, and concentrate on a few parts that, while not male in the usual sense, are more M than F.

I had the surgery to make me more comfortable. Many others who are Intersex are quite comfy being nonstandard genitally, as are many Trans people. I don't ask, unless in a medical context, any more than I ask Intrasex or Cis people about their genital configuration.

Feel free to ask questions, though there's a metric shipload of info on the subject in the trans/intersex thread. May I ask that you look through that first, then get back to me? Thanks
 

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page