Topic du jour

[aesmael]

I despise arguments for acceptance on the basis that the person concerned holds no choice in being who they are. Common examples being homosexuality and, at the moment, transsexuality. Specifically the discussion - arguments - concerning people who see being transsexual as a birth defect, that their body and brain sex are mismatched and all they need is to have their bodies modified so they can live as normative members of society.

The problem is, such appeals work because it is currently possible to cosmetically alter the rest of the body to match the person's claimed brain sex and it is not currently possible to alter the brain so it conforms to the body.

I do not believe this will always be the case. If, in the future, it becomes possible to alter a person's gender (or sexuality) "I can't help it" will no longer be a tenable excuse. If you wish to have the freedom to live your life as you would prefer, you will have to find a new argument. One that will persuade the greater public it is wrong to deny you this freedom, or right to allow it.

To say people should be accepted on the basis of their not having a choice about who they are - to say "this trait is inborn and cannot be altered, and therefore you should not discriminate against me because of it" - implicitly suggests that people who cannot make the same claim are less deserving of acceptance and that someone who does have a choice should choose otherwise. If this argument is the condition on which people allow your existence, then as soon as it does become possible you will be expected to make the choice to become acceptable.

If you have a medical condition, then as technology improves you will be expected to be fully cured.

Cross-posted: aesmael, genderqueer, transfeminism, transgender

Comments

[lost-angelwings.livejournal.com]

I ttlly agree! >:|

In a way it's like victim blaming esp in the future when there's a "cure", but alrdy now when there's "treatment". "It's not OUR fault we don't accept you, it's YOUR fault for not taking the steps that are available to you to become invisible so that you don't bother us"

>:O

I think you're absolutely right that if you reduce it to merely "we have to accept ppl who have no choice but to be different" then therefore it's hardly acceptance. The idea is nobody would CHOOSE to be different and we should not accept or condone ppl who DO choose to be different. :\ And that's problematic b/c it means the onus is on everybody to prove that they're "born" that way in order for their lifestyle or who they are to be accepted. :( And while I believe transsexuality and homosexuality etc are innate, that doesn't mean that should only be tolerated cuz "they can't help it". :\ Why can't we accept ppl b/c they're ppl and are living the lives they want to and not hurting others, and not just b/c "oh poor person they can't help it! well until we find a cure, I guess we just have to let them be" It also leads to the vilification of ppl who "can help it" like ppl in polyamorous relationships or are into fetishes that are looked down upon. Acceptance needs to be more than "we tolerate you b/c we know you can't help it, you poor poor person"

[farsideofewan.livejournal.com]

Yeah I agree with you. I find the I can't help it excuse week too. There is a choice being made by everyone who transitions of either put up with the mismatch or correct it (in really basic laymans terms). I tend to argue that this is a choice I made to better furfull my potential and bring greater scence of self and happiness in who I am.I have made a clear decision and anyone who feels this is not the best course of action can fuck off.

I think the worst bit is when people make the excuse of its not your fault for you and feel sorry for you."Oh the poor dear what a tough life"

[taraxoxo.livejournal.com]

I think a much better argument will be to let people to live most naturally in the way they need to be, rather than to fit any human judgement.

[pazi-ashfeather.livejournal.com]

Mmm, very much agreed.

I find the entire line of argument profoundly disturbing, because what's missing in all of it is an utter lack of respect for the ideal that an individual has the right to deviate against culture, whether in visible or non-visible ways--unless the pitiable sod can't help it. Since morphological freedom is a value I espouse (my most-developed "trans" politics end in "-humanist" rather than "-gendered", and I see the latter as merely an early case study of the former), I appreciate any attempt to go "Now hang on a minute..." The apparent credibility gained by appealing to the notion "We can't help it" will not serve transpeople well forever, and in my view it's acceptance bought at too high a price.

*hugs* You're wonderful, did I mention that?

[bodycountess.livejournal.com]

Hey, I found you on the genderqueer community!

I like the way you think. It's disconcerting that the genetic determinist argument has become the default PC stance.

[mantic-angel.livejournal.com]

Very much agreed - "It's not a choice" defends it as a a flaw. I want to defend it as a choice.

Then again, I'm a firm believer that maturity is the ability to control your mind. So what if homosexuality isn't a choice? Neither is my urge to hurt certain people, but I'm still mature and control that urge. It's still a choice to act on that homosexuality, and so it might as well be a choice to be homosexual. (Besides which, I choose my sexuality rather fluidly, and can now do much the same to my gender.)

[skipperofarc.livejournal.com]

Maybe it's a choice for you, but it isn't a choice for everybody else. Not acting on homosexual feelings, and not being homosexual at all are two very different things. If one doesn't have the urges to begin with, then there's nothing to decide about. If those urges are there, then the option is acceptance or denial. And why deny it?

My identity is not a choice. If it were a choice, then I wouldn't have chosen it. My life would have been much easier if I had actually just been a guy. But I'm not. And once again, the only choice was to deny it or accept it. And there's no damn good reason to deny it.

[mantic-angel.livejournal.com]

I think I was unclear, sorry.

What I'm saying is, "Allow/Deny" is a choice. If we legalize that choice, then it doesn't matter if the urge itself was a choice. I got to choose my urge, you didn't; I think we both still have equal rights to be homosexual, to choose, for ourselves, whether to allow it or deny it.

I'm NOT arguing against homosexuality. I've the unique status of having had all of my relationships, male, female, and unclassified, be homosexual. I'm a pretty big supporter of it.

But I don't understand the argument that it should be legal just because "it's an urge." Yes, for some people, it is an urge. I had some very destructive natural urges as a kid, and that doesn't excuse what I did. Eventually, I learned to control it, I learned to Deny it. Fundamentally, if you want to support homosexuality, you have to support it as a choice - you have to say it's acceptable to Allow this urge.

You ask the perfect question: "Why Deny it?" That's precisely the question we should be asking - what the hell is wrong with Allowing it? Why aren't we allowed to? It has nothing to do with the urge, it has to do with the choice. We might not be able to control the urge, but we can control how we act on it.

[skipperofarc.livejournal.com]

I guess this is sort of a semantics argument, then. Thanks for the clarification :)

[mantic-angel.livejournal.com]

You're welcome. It is a bit of semantics, but I find it important to defend my right to choose homosexuality :)

[chaoticset.livejournal.com]

EXACTLY.

You have said this better than I could have.

I get to use an appropriate icon!

[flynnacatri.livejournal.com]

It is a 'good' argument, in that it is 'fact' and unarguable (by almost everyone XD). It is not an argument to allow freedom, it is the current scientific(ish) basis of some people's need for specific freedoms...

What people wish to do to themselves, and with themselves and to consenting others is their own decision. One should not have to make laws about it. It is only when it is actively harming others that this even needs discussing... (which, in this situation, I have trouble applying... at least no more than any 'normal' lifestyle or action or appearance ca betwisted. I could come up with something, having a twisted mind and all that but... the sorts of people most upset by gender and sex deviations are the ones least able to follow my randomly swooping mind XD)

[skipperofarc.livejournal.com]

For there to be a cure there must be a pathology. I think you can have a condition without it being considered a defect. I don't think being trans is defective. And I certainly don't want anybody playing with my brain, ever. I don't understand how that could be seen as a viable option. To me, being trans is like being left-handed. It's rare, and most of society isn't made for left-handed people. But we don't "correct" it or consider it wrong anymore (for the most part, anyways).