What's Required to be Considered "Tolerant" of Transgender People?

[digsbe]

I would say tolerance would be accepting the fact that someone else has made a decision and treating them with respect as a human being. You don't have to agree with their decision or agree with their interpretation or presentation of gender. It would be intolerant for them to demand that of you.

 

[the_recruit]

How often do you see that happen? In my personal experience and based on statistics, that is an exception and not a rule. And a rare exception at that.

Half a dozen posters in this very thread have stated that although they may disagree with transgenderism, they believe such people should be treated with as much kindness and respect as anyone else.

:shrug:

 

[opendebate]

I have no idea. That's a hypothetical. But it certainly doesn't happen with any regularity. Citing some paragon who can fundamentally disrespect a person's nature but won't ever let that disrespect affect their actions means nothing. Such a person is extremely rare and doesn't excuse all of the people who do treat trans people poorly.

Of course it doesn't . I don't believe that was ever suggested. I think however that it's easier to get people to change their behavior then their hearts. So would the goal be to have transgendered people treated respectfully or for them to be respected. Option 2 seems completely unobtainable, option 1 does not.

 

[the_recruit]

Christianity - increasingly the love that dare not speak its name.

Huh. Didn't realize that I'm a Christian. Do I get a membership card or something? :lol:

 

[Paschendale]

Half a dozen posters in this very thread have stated that although they may disagree with transgenderism, they believe such people should be treated with as much kindness and respect as anyone else.

:shrug:

A lot of people fancy themselves more upright than they actually are. Probably everyone, both of us included, in fact.

Of course it doesn't . I don't believe that was ever suggested. I think however that it's easier to get people to change their behavior then their hearts. So would the goal be to have transgendered people treated respectfully or for them to be respected. Option 2 seems completely unobtainable, option 1 does not.

And I am saying that they cannot be separated. The idea that a person can have disdain and disrespect for someone but still somehow treat them without disdain and disrespect is a fantasy. As much as someone might insist that they are above that, it's not really true. It's like separate but equal. This notion requires holding the idea that someone is broken or inferior but somehow not sticking them with the crappy water fountain. It took a major social revolution to do that, and the result has had to have been condemning the idea that black people are inferior, not that they should just be treated as if they aren't, but that they actually aren't. Which is, of course, the truth. Same with trans people. This mythical status of internal disrespect but no external disrespect is just that, mythical.

Could such a thing be possible? Maybe. But in practice, it doesn't exist.

 

[the_recruit]

A lot of people fancy themselves more upright than they actually are. Probably everyone, both of us included, in fact.

So what? People are saying they believe transgenders should be treated with kindness and respect. What do you want from them? A sworn affidavit and three character references? This is an internet forum. What's the point of conversing with someone if you're going to ignore what they say they believe and pretend they believe something else instead.

Because I can play that game too: I don't believe you accept transgender people. I think you're a homophobic bigot that believes transgender people should be executed. I don't care what you say you believe. See how stupid that is? :roll:

 

[Goshin]

But you don't accept, so you don't respect. So you're emotionally or mentally deficient. If you ask someone "what are you?" in any context, and they answer, you think that reality is anything other than their answer, then you are deficient.
.

Taking that literally as written, if a person tells me they are a helicopter, and I decline to believe them because they have no rotor on their head, I am deficient? If they tell me they are President Abraham Lincoln, and I point out that he's been dead over a century, then I'm deficient? That's the literal meaning of what you wrote.




I think you need to think that through again.

 

[shrubnose]

Tolerance is trying to be fair and objective about something that doesn't align or match up with your view of the world

(etc).

Tolerance is not shifting your opinions and views on something entirely all based on one person's feelings and opinions.

"Tolerance is giving to every other human being every right that you claim for yourself." ~ Robert Green Ingersoll

 

[PirateMk1]

A lot of people fancy themselves more upright than they actually are. Probably everyone, both of us included, in fact.



And I am saying that they cannot be separated. The idea that a person can have disdain and disrespect for someone but still somehow treat them without disdain and disrespect is a fantasy. As much as someone might insist that they are above that, it's not really true. It's like separate but equal. This notion requires holding the idea that someone is broken or inferior but somehow not sticking them with the crappy water fountain. It took a major social revolution to do that, and the result has had to have been condemning the idea that black people are inferior, not that they should just be treated as if they aren't, but that they actually aren't. Which is, of course, the truth. Same with trans people. This mythical status of internal disrespect but no external disrespect is just that, mythical.

Could such a thing be possible? Maybe. But in practice, it doesn't exist.

I have only one legal obligation when it comes to people of all kinds, I have to tolerate them. That is it. IE don't go around picking fights and starting trouble with people. I am to leave them alone and they visa versa. I don't have to be polite to them, or respect them or listen to them except in very select instances. I don't have to like them, or associate with them, or do business with them. I have NO obligation whatsoever to accept anybody's word, or view of the world. And people have the same rights and obligations I do. That sir is the extent of tolerance in the legal sense. I and everyone else in this country has the right to be a dick if we so choose. And I do choose to be a dick on occasion and on a occasion I will be an asshole too, the only reason being, because I can. This is a free country despite the attempts to make it otherwise.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

"Tolerance is giving to every other human being every right that you claim for yourself." ~ Robert Green Ingersoll

That's equality - not tolerance.

Two very different things.

 

[Zinthaniel]

That's equality - not tolerance.

Two very different things.

I don't see how doing anythiing less than treating others equally can be viewed as tolerant. If you actively refuse someone rights because of something they are you are not being tolerant.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

I don't see how doing anythiing less than treating others equally can be viewed as tolerant. If you actively refuse someone rights because of something they are you are not being tolerant.

Tolerance is a state of mind for an individual - rights are a matter of legalities.

Something could be illegal - but people could still be tolerant.

But I was commenting on that particular quote if his. It was: "Tolerance is giving to every other human being every right that you claim for yourself."

But in regard to something like abortion, no, it can't extend to males as they're unable to be pregnant. (A silly example - but it shows that sometimes there are rights you would not hold for yourself but still enable others to have those rights. Men can be pro-choice.)

Or consider people who oppose abortion and do not believe they have that right - tolerance for them would then be extending a right that they themselves do not believe they have and then giving that right to other people (ergo: not supporting abortion for their selves, not seeing it as an option for their selves, but still believing that others have the right to do so).

There's a difference in these things. Extending rights does not necessarily tie into being tolerant.

Tolerance should be seen separately from rights. Rights might rely in part on people's tolerance of things. However, the two at times are very different and thus shouldn't be confused.

I am tolerant of gay rights - Ergo, when I support gay rights I am putting aside some measure of personal discomfort I feel in sight of what I think is more important: equality. I am willing to extend equality via tolerance. However, others who are tolerant of gay rights are still not willing to extend equality, yet they will still tolerate various things connected to it. Beyond that, some people who support gay rights don't even feel it's a matter of tolerance - it just is logical, the way it should be - these people aren't putting aside their personal opinions (ie: tolerance) when they support gay rights.

Further, there are some things I tolerate that are not a matter of rights. There are some rights I fully align with and it isn't even a matter of tolerance.

Just two very different things and sometimes equality relies on people being tolerant - but that doesn't mean they're the same.

 

[Superfly]

Simply accepting someone's choice, treating them as any person should be treated is all any of us can ask in this world. I doubt it matters to a transgendered person whether you "believe" they had a legitimate biological disconnect causing their gender identity dysphoria or not... unless they wanted to have an intimate relationship with you, which would be an entirely different topic, lol. Transgendered people just wish to be treated like everyone else (of the gender they identify themselves with). They want to use the restroom they identify with and not be subjected to ridicule; they wish to have dinner with friends, take in a movie, enjoy conversation.

Anyone who treats transgendered people as they would treat anyone else they came across in their lives would certainly be a godsend to them, and would earn the respect of most people, I imagine, most certainly mine.

This. ^^

Couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[Muhammed]

A friend of mine had the operation and I treat him the same as always. If he wants to be called Cindy, fine, I'll call him Cindy. But he's still the same ol' Craig to me.

 

[opendebate]

It took a major social revolution to do that, and the result has had to have been condemning the idea that black people are inferior, not that they should just be treated as if they aren't, but that they actually aren't. Which is, of course, the truth. Same with trans people. This mythical status of internal disrespect but no external disrespect is just that, mythical.

Could such a thing be possible? Maybe. But in practice, it doesn't exist.

And I am saying that they cannot be separated. The idea that a person can have disdain and disrespect

First of all you usually take a (at least I think) a very different stand than this so I'm wondering if you're playing devils advocate. I guess I don't really care though so WTH.

You seem to assume disdain where there may be none. You did't say disdain earlier you said they don't accept... Those are different things and disdain is not automatically present when there is disapproval a lack of acceptance.

In my experience we all often encounter others who in some way we respect and in some way we do not. I can love my best friend because she possesses many qualities I admire but not respect her intolerance for transgenders. I chose to assume that her intolerance is a product of her lack of experience rather than a flaw in her character so I can respect her overall at the same time I don't respect that attitude and treat he with respect and kindness in spite of my disdain for her lack of acceptance for transgenders.

This notion requires holding the idea that someone is broken or inferior but somehow not sticking them with the crappy water fountain.

If you understand that to a great extent we are all a byproduct of our biology and environment then you don't necessarily think that someone is broken or inferior because they make choices that collide with your values.

A lot of people fancy themselves more upright than they actually are. Probably everyone, both of us included, in fact.

No I am completely upright at all time and under all circumstances

It took a major social revolution to do that, and the result has had to have been condemning the idea that black people are inferior, not that they should just be treated as if they aren't, but that they actually aren't. Which is, of course, the truth. Same with trans people. This mythical status of internal disrespect but no external disrespect is just that, mythical.

I think efforts like this are multi-tiered. Meaning there is the individuals evolution and the group (social) evolution. Those are different beasts and how you provoke change is addressed differently and change happens at a different pace.

Could such a thing be possible? Maybe. But in practice, it doesn't exist.

I am here to tell you that is inaccurate (as have are many in this thread )

 

[Paschendale]

I am here to tell you that is inaccurate (as have are many in this thread )

I'm here to tell you that people who think that you can disrespect someone without disrespecting someone are full of it. It's not different from a racist saying that someone is pretty good for a whatever. Or saying that a woman throws pretty well, for a girl. If you think someone is inferior for being something different, you will never treat them as well as you should. In their ego, people might claim that they would, but they're lying to themselves and to us. And no, this is not a different position than I usually take. Love the sinner but hate the sin is BS, and this is no different.

 

[opendebate]

I'm here to tell you that people who think that you can disrespect someone without disrespecting someone are full of it. It's not different from a racist saying that someone is pretty good for a whatever. Or saying that a woman throws pretty well, for a girl. If you think someone is inferior for being something different, you will never treat them as well as you should. In their ego, people might claim that they would, but they're lying to themselves and to us. And no, this is not a different position than I usually take. Love the sinner but hate the sin is BS, and this is no different.

Again you assume that a judgment of inferiority is attached to a disrespect, lack of understanding or inability to approve of the choices someone else has made in their life. That's just not necessarily the case. My disrespect for another's choices is rooted in my limited experience. It is not an absolute value. Knowing that, I can "feel" disrespect for another persons choice while at the same time understanding my limited capacity to fully grasp the motivations for that choice. In such a case I treat them with respect while disapproving of their choice and understanding we may not be a good fit for a close relationship. So the impact or outcome of my "disapproval" becomes the limitations it places on the depth of intimacy or closeness our relationship has not in a display of disrespect towards them.

 

[cpwill]

It's an issue many of us Christians often need to come to grips with (and not only in this context but in many others), when does compassion become compromise of our principles?

The dividing line I try to come to is enablement.

 

[X Factor]

Taking that literally as written, if a person tells me they are a helicopter, and I decline to believe them because they have no rotor on their head, I am deficient? If they tell me they are President Abraham Lincoln, and I point out that he's been dead over a century, then I'm deficient? That's the literal meaning of what you wrote.




I think you need to think that through again.

He just needs to consider what his reaction would be if someone told him that he/she was a decent person with religious beliefs. That would not be something he would accept from anyone. Also, he's one of the most judgmental people here so I'm finding his arguments to be downright funny. He is most definitely of the "do as I say, not as I do" camp.

 

[shrubnose]

That's equality - not tolerance.

Two very different things.

Tell Robert Green Ingersoll all about it if you run into him in the next world.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

Tell Robert Green Ingersoll all about it if you run into him in the next world.

Or you could stop trying to channel dead guys when you're wanting to engage in a discussion and instead speak for that belief yourself.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

I'm here to tell you that people who think that you can disrespect someone without disrespecting someone are full of it. It's not different from a racist saying that someone is pretty good for a whatever. Or saying that a woman throws pretty well, for a girl. If you think someone is inferior for being something different, you will never treat them as well as you should. In their ego, people might claim that they would, but they're lying to themselves and to us. And no, this is not a different position than I usually take. Love the sinner but hate the sin is BS, and this is no different.

Well the problem with this is 'disrespect' is a strictly subjective topic - and the only gauge (apparently) is the opinion of the person who feels 'disrespected'.

It boils down to a matter of hurting someone's feelings or not.

I'm hardly going to be swayed on major issues when it comes to someone's feelings - especially when pleasing one person's feelings means hurting someone else's - or ignoring my own feelings all together.

So 'disrespect' issues go out the window here. As does the argument of 'you'll never treat them as well as you should' - What's the deciding factor? Who's calling these shots and deciding who should and should not receive certain treatment?

 

[shrubnose]

Or you could stop trying to channel dead guys when you're wanting to engage in a discussion and instead speak for that belief yourself.

Correct, I could, but I intend to continue using my 1st Amendment right to say what I want to say in the way that I want to say it and let others do the same.

IOW: Take a hike.




"The only valid censorship of ideas is the right of people not to listen. ~ Tommy Smothers

 

[year2late]

This question occurred to me reading Mr. V's thread. For you to be considered tolerant of the transgendered community, is it enough to respect someone's choices, treat them as any person should be treated even if you can never accept yourself that they're truly the gender they've been reassigned to or is the only way to be truly tolerant or compassionate is to fully believe that the transgendered person is just as genuinely male/female as those born that way? Sincere question.

Frankly, why even get up into their life like that. Why is it necessary to care about their genetic makeup or sexuality? When I walk up to a random stranger, I do not think " Did they once have a penis?" Where did it go?

Assuming we are speaking strangers, how about simple common courtesy. No acceptance or such required.

Other than that, it is up to you whom you form close relationships with and how you "accept them".

But just not being an asshole is a great start.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

Correct, I could, but I intend to continue using my 1st Amendment right to say what I want to say in the way that I want to say it and let others do the same.

IOW: Take a hike.




"The only valid censorship of ideas is the right of people not to listen. ~ Tommy Smothers

You brought it up - so I presumed you were making a point that you wanted to discuss.

My bad - I guess you weren't. :roll: I didn't realize posting quotes was a way of sidestepping conversation. Pass that one onto Obama, he could use it.