I might be for it if a significantly large proportion of society were trans.
But with so few trans people, why not just make adaptations for the trans people and leave everyone else alone unless the adaptations actually benefit them? People - especially young or vulnerable people - can be convinced to question and doubt things in themselves that had been just fine before, and even develop neuroses about them. I speak from personal experience. I have driven myself further into neuroses of my own, just by dwelling on things that there was no need or point dwelling on.
I mean as an example of the point about adaptations, there's a kid with neurological differences in one of my classes of 28 kids. One of the consequences of his neurological differences is that he is partially sighted. I adapt material especially for that kid because he needs it. If one or two of those adaptations benefit everyone else, I might apply those one or two globally. But I don't consider all or most of the adaptations I make to accommodate his partial sightedness to be applicable across the board. In fact, it would cause some actual problems if I did so.
Also, we have to ask what being trans is: is it a normal, healthy variation on the alignment of a person's gender with their sex? Or is it a disorder? How can it be normal and healthy to be one way in your body and another way in your mind, which drives your body?
Is my perception of what it is to be trans, mistaken? Is a trans person not in a place where they feel that their body is the wrong sex? How is it possible to normalise that and say 'Well, maybe a lot of people's are, so we might as well all write our preferred gender pronouns'? How would it not be like saying 'maybe everyone is partially sighted'?
I guess I'm a little skeptical and I get that it can feel insulting in the extreme to be considered disabled by someone. But part of me doesn't understand the logic of how it's possible for a person to believe that they have the 'wrong' something or other, and not class that 'wrong' thing as a disability. If it's wrong, doesn't that mean it's also 'not okay'?
IIN my workplace has new name tags for people's gender pronouns?
← View full post
I might be for it if a significantly large proportion of society were trans.
But with so few trans people, why not just make adaptations for the trans people and leave everyone else alone unless the adaptations actually benefit them? People - especially young or vulnerable people - can be convinced to question and doubt things in themselves that had been just fine before, and even develop neuroses about them. I speak from personal experience. I have driven myself further into neuroses of my own, just by dwelling on things that there was no need or point dwelling on.
I mean as an example of the point about adaptations, there's a kid with neurological differences in one of my classes of 28 kids. One of the consequences of his neurological differences is that he is partially sighted. I adapt material especially for that kid because he needs it. If one or two of those adaptations benefit everyone else, I might apply those one or two globally. But I don't consider all or most of the adaptations I make to accommodate his partial sightedness to be applicable across the board. In fact, it would cause some actual problems if I did so.
Also, we have to ask what being trans is: is it a normal, healthy variation on the alignment of a person's gender with their sex? Or is it a disorder? How can it be normal and healthy to be one way in your body and another way in your mind, which drives your body?
Is my perception of what it is to be trans, mistaken? Is a trans person not in a place where they feel that their body is the wrong sex? How is it possible to normalise that and say 'Well, maybe a lot of people's are, so we might as well all write our preferred gender pronouns'? How would it not be like saying 'maybe everyone is partially sighted'?
I guess I'm a little skeptical and I get that it can feel insulting in the extreme to be considered disabled by someone. But part of me doesn't understand the logic of how it's possible for a person to believe that they have the 'wrong' something or other, and not class that 'wrong' thing as a disability. If it's wrong, doesn't that mean it's also 'not okay'?