It might be misleading in nature, but that's what it means, and it's an accepted definition. If you're aware, which you are, then you understand that it's only misleading to those who haven't bothered to take the time to learn about the issue in the first place.

But it is used in an overwhelmingly negative connotation, when by that definition it isn't necessarily negative. The average person who has never experienced meeting someone who is transgender will most likely be uncomfortable with it at first. Is it appropriate to use that negatively-based word on them?

What's so discomforting about it? It breaks social norms, sure, but do you think a little two-year-old kid who knows nothing else is gonna care? It's not inherent, it's taught. Just stop teaching people that transgender people are uncomfortable to be around and it won't be anymore.

It isn't that easy. It isn't just that people are teaching others that transgenders make things uncomfortable, but that they upset a natural order from thousands of years. If you want to cry "progress" and say it is a good thing, fine. But explaining to an African why people are dressing in clothes that don't seem to match their bodies is going to be uncomfortable.

*sorry, that sounds racist. i meant to finish, "a tribal African, or someone who has never heard of transgender"

Doesn't have to be someone in Africa. It doesn't matter where they are in the world. The fact of the matter is that I have no reason to be uncomfortable with someone else's life choices because they have no bearing on me. Instead of teaching people that there is a certain acceptable way to live, we would be better off teaching people that there is a range of acceptable ways to live, and so long as your lifestyle does not physically harm someone, you are within that range.

But this is completely arbitrary on both sides. One side you shouldn't live in X way because Y. The other side says it is OK, and you can do anything, as long as you don't do Z.

Why is your opinion any more valid than those who disagree with transgender people? Or turn it around. Why do you get to tell people they shouldn't be violent? I agree with you, and most of the world does. But it comes down to the fact that we are regulating some people who disagree with us by our morality/ethics.

Because allowing something like murder or arson or some other crime in society harms someone. Allowing transgender people to use the bathroom of the gender they identify by does not. I make the same argument for "illicit" drugs and other things - they can't harm you.

So what you are saying is that it is against your morality/ethics to harm someone. Got it. Now, stop subjecting me to your morality/ethics! And anyway, that is subjective, what "harms" someone. I can say that it is a "bad influence" on my kids. Therefore it is harmful.

I am talking physical harm. That's why I bothered to give examples.

If two people consent to being able to murder each other, then I have no issue with it, so long as no one else gets dragged in and no one else is harmed. I would simply hope that these two people cleared such a decision with their family. If two people consent to being able to burn down each other's houses and damage their property, then I have no problem with it. If two people consent to having sex with each other, regardless of their born sex, I have no problem with it.

If a person decides that they are better off changing something in their life, whether it's a job, place of residence, partner, or whatever, they can. Same goes for gender. You can change that. I can change mine if I wanted. We have the tools to do that, so we might as well. The fact that it doesn't take a second party's consent makes it even simpler to get on board with than something like assisted suicide, which takes the consent of two parties. It's just someone's choice about who they are. It has no effect on you and does not physically harm you.

You realize you are just stating opinions again, right? You are saying, not here, but elsewhere, that people HAVE TO follow along with this sort of stuff. This sort of philosophy is much more authoritarian than the one you are trying to replace. If people don't agree with the current "acceptance" then they are completely ostracized and slandered. You are saying your beliefs and those who agree with you are simply worth more than others'.

+1M KingCyrus

Oh no, I woke the troll :P

"So basically it is a made up word not at all in keeping with the traditional usage of the word phobia."

- Yes well done, you've figured out the great secret. Words are made up. All. of. them. All of the time.

We have agreed definitions and meanings change with usage. But this is english, not the latin/greek which we draw on for some root words.

"Why is your opinion any more valid than those who disagree with transgender people? Or turn it around. Why do you get to tell people they shouldn't be violent?"

Everyone. Everyone gets to tell everyone what their opinion is. We don't have to listen. But it turns out that listening to only the most powerful people leads to social practices which hurt others. If we want to live in a compassionate society then we should listen to minority voices. Those which have not got the (largely white, male, wealthy, educated, hetro-sexual, cis-gendered) media speaking for them already - voicing their concerns (whether that is about taxs, gun control or abortion). If we want to live with our fellow neighbours in a compassionate society we should listen to them, and then decide whether their opinions are valid.

You don't have to follow their opinion, but when they say 'this thing you are doing hurts me' - whether feminist, person of colour, transgender, homosexual, or any other minority - you have the choice of ignoring that hurt - because you're a powerful majority who doesn't have to give a shit - and taking it into consideration.

That's up to you, whether you want to be an asshole or not.

And if you're wealthy (as i presume you are, because you're able to spend time on the internet...) then you've no excuse for not educating yoruself. It is your choice to be ignorant, and hurt other people.

It all comes down to the kind of world you want to live in; and i'm pretty sure even you can understand this much. If you want to be a troll, you can, but we're entitled to fucking hate you and ignore you for it...

An opposition to the notion of trans-sexuality is not ignorant. Ignorance would be if someone did not take the time to understand what trans-sexuality is, why certain people identify as trans-sexual, understanding the psychological motivations behind identifying as trans-sexual, et cetera.

Many people on this thread are conflating opposition with ignorance. One can have all the facts and go to all the websites and know the psychology, and also make a serious and legitimate effort to empathize with those who identify as trans-sexual. If, after doing all of those things, one still opposes trans-sexuality, then such opposition is not ignorant.

It is possible to be principally opposed to the notion of trans-sexuality and also not be ignorant about what it is and those who identify in that way. Just like it is possible to principally opposed to anything and not be ignorant about it. There are many serious and well thought-out considerations regarding trans-sexuality which can lead reasonable people who understand what it is to oppose it.

To slander all people who oppose trans-sexuality as ignorant is itself actually an enormously ignorant viewpoint, as it marginalizes people who hold to that viewpoint without attempting to understand or listen to their perspective and their reasons for principled opposition. It is also indicative of a lack of respect for civic discourse about the common and human good. Instead, such an instant marginalization of any opposing viewpoint is itself an attempt to impose a totalizing world-and life-view onto a certain subset of the population.

"There are many serious and well thought-out considerations regarding trans-
sexuality which can lead reasonable people who understand what it is to
oppose it."

Can you demonstrate any? I believe i said being nice and taking other people's view into consideration, when you decide how to treat them, is good.

For example, when it comes to gay marriage, you can have your opinion against it, and even reasons for your bigotry; and so long as you don't try to decide for others who they should be allowed marry then i don't give a toss. When you act on your opinions in a way which harms others then you are being an ass. And should be labeled as such.

"To slander all people who oppose trans-sexuality as ignorant is itself actually an enormously ignorant viewpoint"

Good thing that's not what i did then, eh? I said to not educate yourself was ignorant. Not that to oppose anything was ignorant. Maybe you will read the words next time you think about replying.

And i fully admit, i have a worldview i want to see imposed. It includes no harming others. Do you have a problem with this view?

Oh orathaic, I understand everyone gets to tell everyone what they like or don't like. As long as you understand and agree with the fact that your entire argument is that you basically don't like something and therefore want to impose that on everyone, up to and including execution.

You authoritarian ass.

Heil orathaic, Master of our Thoughts and Actions. All bow before Him.

So you are for or against my basic premise of 'do no harm'? I'm still unclear about how ignorant you are being...

I mean i have no problem being dictator of the world, i here a benovlant dictator is actually the hest form of government...

Have lost the track of the arguments entirely. If I could sum up:

There is faction A that is convinced that any non-born with type of sex self-identifications and with different preferences for having sex than male-female are mentally ill.

Then there is a faction B convinced that these orientations and identifications are choices.

The lines between A and B are a little blurry, not by definition but by adherence.

There is also a faction that is convinced that A is wrong, I'll call them (-A), including all members to the discussion that don't belong to A.

Then there is a faction C, who fears because of choices by people (as in B) that others might become ill (as in A) and therefore blame (-A) for not being (A).

There is a faction (-C) that goes the other way around, because of reasons for A people have the right to make choices B so that (-A) is proven right.

Than there is D thinking that people in faction (-C) are fascists (which concerning the topic belong in general to the A and C group) because (-C) people think that C-people are fascists and hence try to oppress them because they think it is valid to oppress fascism. The interesting part here is, everybody agrees that fascists have to be oppressed.

Replace fascism with authoritarianism and you'll get the larger set D+ without change to the argument.

Then there are factions (-D)/(-D+) which says that being against oppressors (because of A) is not oppressive but that defending the right of A to say that (-A) is oppression is oppression because of B.

And then there are faction E who says having opinions is oppression towards the people that have different opinions, faction F which says faction E's views are stupid, faction (-F) that faction E is oppressive because there exists faction F, …

There were more interesting observations, but I stop here. I think the differences between choice and illness are a little blurry in the discussion and between having/stating an opinion and oppression as well. Not to forget things like the confusion of Right and Duty, responsibility and accountability, respecting and accepting, …

I think i said that a 'mental illness' which can be cured by a physical surgery wasn't much of a mental illness... But maybe that details was missed.

Saying all transgender people are mentally ill is to unduely pathologize them. But saying that they have a choice to be trans is either ignorant or damagingly arrogant.

In all honesty I think one of the biggest problems here is caused by prejudice against mental illness. Quite a lot of the posters here are treating the suggestion that transgender people are mentally ill as some kind of vile slur against them, when frankly it should be nothing of the sort.

I agree that prejudice against mental illness is a massive problem, but even if there were no stigma to mental illness, classifying transgender as mental illness would still be a debatable proposition, and, say, preventing transgender people from driving would be completely and utterly ridiculous. And it is a vile slur, despite what we'd like.

further suggestions: what is an illness? what is a mental illness? what is choice? do we choose illness? is any of the LBGT (I'm to ignorant about the Q, I heard once someone saying as a hermaphrodite he is double bi hence quad – it's this?) a life style (like wearing a cowboy hat and carrying open or not driving a car)?

Q can be queer and there was something else it could be too that I don't recall.

Interesting questions. I'd say a mental illness is a pathological compulsion or behavior. I'm not convinced anything in LGBT(Q, whatever) is a danger to themselves or society, so it's not a mental illness. An illness would be a pathological effect on a person. I'd say we don't choose illness. All of them can have a lifestyle component, but are not actually a lifestyle on their own. It's a sexual/gender identity, which seems larger than lifestyle to me.

@orathaic, I am all about "do no harm," but you are intending to legislate it. I thought not legislating your morality was something that you had argued for here?

Holy fucking shit webdip is a parody of itself.

Btw this is Acosmist.

"I am all about "do no harm," but you are intending to legislate it."

Again, i never suggested changing any legislation. I suggested using the current legislation on abuse to punish the parents in this case.