LGBTAI+ Questions and Discussion thread II: Make It Double

[Frozen_Feet]

It's no wonder if you don't get why it's a double standard; it isn't. It's a simple standard based on trivial fact. Whether it's a good standard is a completely different discussion.

If there's any irrational fear here, it's towards her daughter becoming pregnant as a teenager, not towards any trans person. This is a pretty standard mom thing, trying to spin it as something else is seriously ungenerous towards her person.

@ThinkMinty & golentan: bipolar disorder is not a generic "mental health issue", it's a specific thing and poor judgement comes with the territory. Statistically, bipolar people are more likely to start a sex life sooner and take bigger risks, especially during manic periods; it's how the condition has gotten as prevalent as it is, as it's largely genetic. So worrying about one's bipolar daughter/sister doing something stupid is not exactly unwarranted. Of course, specific knowledge of the invidual trumps general trends; but I'd expect noparlf know her better than people in this thread.

[noparlpf]

Oh yeah, it is actually borderline personality, not bipolar.

Sure, plenty of people with mental health issues make it through adolescence fine. But in the specific case of BPD, a common trait is impulsivity with romantic/sexual relationships. Usually when you read about "splitting" it focusses on the rapid swing to dislike/devaluation after a perceived slight, but there also seems to be a tendency to idealise a new person who's acting nice and to fall into strong crushes really easily. I've only known a couple of people actually diagnosed with BPD during adolescence (maybe because it's often initially diagnosed as bipolar in teens), but even based on that limited sample it does seem to hold true. And regardless of mental health, most teenagers are beyond parental advice for a couple of years in there and some even go out of their way to do the opposite of what their parents say just to act out. So what I meant was that between typical adolescent poor judgement, trying to rebel against authority, and an increased tendency to sudden and intense puppy love, the sex talk isn't necessarily going to cut it. My mum's working under the assumption that it's going to happen sooner or later (regardless of whether or not she condones it) and is just hoping that it's later, because getting birth control prescribed for a teenage girl can be a pain in the neck and getting my sister in particular to take her meds regularly is proving to be difficult.

[Serpentine]

Wait... Really? My mum put me on the pill... I'm not sure exactly when, but within a couple of years of my first period ("for my acne"). Granted she's a doctor so it was a lot easier, but the only step she really skipped was the GP appointment to get a prescription.

[Siosilvar]

No, really, can y'all cis people stop taking over the trans people in the thread? Especially on things that directly relate to us?

Even if you give the mother the benefit of the doubt and assume it wasn't intentional (which I am perfectly willing to do), it's still delegitimizing. When we come up with another word for "unintentionally having the same results as transphobia" we can lump it under that but until then, it's transphobic. Not to the same degree as active hatred, obviously, but it still falls under the same category.

When you start treating people differently based on their genitalia when you don't have first-hand experience with that part of them, that's transphobia. And here it's a poor excuse for not teaching real sex ed to your child.

[Jormengand]

No, really, can y'all cis people stop taking over the trans people in the thread? Especially on things that directly relate to us?

Fine; I'll talk over you instead: I disagree with you and I think cisgender people should have the right to disagree with you too. If you like, I can repeat word-for-word what the cis people said, and it will suddenly be okay because I'm genderfluid. Or, you can stop with the transer-than-thou rhetoric that only trans people are allowed to talk about trans issues, as though only animals talked about animal rights or as though no white person ever tried to improve standards of living for black people.

[Siosilvar]

-snip-

Piss off. I don't expect to be treated as an authority, I do expect to be treated as a primary source. That is: two of the people who disagreed with me since I posted have done so in a way that asserts my opinion is invalid without actually engaging with it. It's not about disagreement, it's about actually having a conversation.

edit: Actually, only one person making two posts. Regardless.

[Jormengand]

Piss off. I don't expect to be treated as an authority, I do expect to be treated as a primary source. That is: two of the people who disagreed with me since I posted have done so in a way that asserts my opinion is invalid without actually engaging with it. It's not about disagreement, it's about actually having a conversation.

edit: Actually, only one person making two posts. Regardless.

I'm afraid that I don't see how it wasn't engaging with your opinion. You don't get to decide what someone else's motivation or reasoning is. I cannot see how:

If there's any irrational fear here, it's towards her daughter becoming pregnant as a teenager, not towards any trans person. This is a pretty standard mom thing, trying to spin it as something else is seriously ungenerous towards her person.

...is anything other than spectacularly succeeding to engage with your reasoning, that is, your - as he put it - "Seriously ungenerous assumption" that the mother was being transphobic despite her choices of who to allow near her child aligning perfectly with a desire to avoid teenage pregnancy and not in the least with transphobia.

Anyway, I'm afraid the only primary source is the mother herself. You have no greater insight into her reasoning than FF does, nor do you have any more than I do, and telling me to "Piss off" just because I disagree with you is not only confrontational and rude, but immensely hypocritical.

[Siosilvar]

-snip-

Congratulations on citing the one part of the post I didn't have any issues with.

Now, if you don't mind, I'm going to go cool off, because apparently I'm not allowed to have any concerns about what other people say and do today.

[Jormengand]

I'm not allowed to have any concerns about what other people say and do today.

No, you're not allowed to have any concerns with who people are today.

[Siosilvar]

No, you're not allowed to have any concerns with who people are today.

Right, because addressing a potential root cause of the issue is totally shutting out people based on identity.

I'm not saying cis people don't get to have an opinion on trans issues. I am saying that people need to listen to each other and not tell me that I'm stretching or that I'm factually incorrect about something that is, inherently, about opinion and emotion. And I'm saying that there's a cultural power differential that might be causing people in the thread to assume that they're the end-all arbiter of things when they're not. And I called out that differential by name.

[Jormengand]

Right, because addressing a potential root cause of the issue is totally shutting out people based on identity.

I'm not saying cis people don't get to have an opinion on trans issues. I am saying that people need to listen to each other and not tell me that I'm stretching or that I'm factually incorrect about something that is, inherently, about opinion and emotion. And I'm saying that there's a cultural power differential that might be causing people in the thread to assume that they're the end-all arbiter of things when they're not. And I called out that differential by name.

I'm sorry, but whether people are being discriminated against is not inherently subjective. It is simple fact that either someone is being discriminatory or they are not, either whether someone is cisgender is relevant to whether or not they're talking over you or it is not. These things do not change from person to person nor is it a wise move to complain about cis people one moment and then claiming that you don't care the next.

[Siosilvar]

I'm sorry, but whether people are being discriminated against is not inherently subjective. It is simple fact that either someone is being discriminatory or they are not, either whether someone is cisgender is relevant to whether or not they're talking over you or it is not. These things do not change from person to person nor is it a wise move to complain about cis people one moment and then claiming that you don't care the next.

You're not really understanding my point. I fully admit that I was unclear in the original complaint, but here's what I mean:

It is relevant, because it's a potential reason for it. It's not that it matters more coming from a certain group of people, it's that it's more likely coming from a potential group of people. It's power theory or privilege politics or whatever, it doesn't really matter why: people with more privilege (cis, white, male, etc.) are more likely to invalidate others' opinions, intentionally or not.

I found some of Frozen_Feet's rhetoric invalidating, and called out the group to challenge assumptions that he may have made without calling him out directly. I found your initial response to that invalidating as well, but I see now that was just a misunderstanding.

[Jormengand]

It is relevant, because it's a potential reason for it. It's not that it matters more coming from a certain group of people, it's that it's more likely coming from a potential group of people. It's power theory or privilege politics or whatever, it doesn't really matter why: people with more privilege (cis, white, male, etc.) are more likely to invalidate others' opinions, intentionally or not.

Here we disagree. If I had spoken the exact same words he did they would have been no more or less valid, no more or less invalidating, for me being the one to speak them. I inherently dislike the idea - though not, I might add, those who hold it because I am not in the business of judging people - that people's words can be more or less invalidating, harmful, abstract, silly, solemn, insulting, verbose, well-spoken, or simply correct based on what group that person belongs to.

[Siosilvar]

Here we disagree. If I had spoken the exact same words he did they would have been no more or less valid, no more or less invalidating, for me being the one to speak them. I inherently dislike the idea - though not, I might add, those who hold it because I am not in the business of judging people - that people's words can be more or less invalidating, harmful, abstract, silly, solemn, insulting, verbose, well-spoken, or simply correct based on what group that person belongs to.

>It's not that it matters more coming from a certain group of people,

Is that not exactly what I said?

[Jormengand]

>It's not that it matters more coming from a certain group of people,

Is that not exactly what I said?

Well yes, but given that your next paragraph, and also the sentence that started this debate, both flatly contradicted that, I'm not sure what to believe any more. People who are in a privileged group are absolutely not any more likely to invalidate other people's opinions. In fact, I more often see people not in privileged groups invalidating the opinions in those of those privileged groups.

[Elderand]

Please, invalidating someone else opinion has nothing to do with privilege. Minorities are just as quick to shut down any discussion or dissenting point of view by playing the exclusion card. Your opinion doesn't count because you're not (insert thing here) is used by everyone. And it is always bull****.

[Siosilvar]

Well yes, but given that your next paragraph, and also the sentence that started this debate, both flatly contradicted that, I'm not sure what to believe any more. People who are in a privileged group are absolutely not any more likely to invalidate other people's opinions. In fact, I more often see people not in privileged groups invalidating the opinions in those of those privileged groups.

I am uncertain if any studies exist outside of the men-women dynamic, but they absolutely are. I don't have time to do a solid analysis of everything during finals week so that's just one of the top search links.

Additionally, you seem to be confusing risk exposure with risk impact (not sure on the terms outside of project management but that's what's on the mind right now so here I go). Saying that it's more of an issue doesn't mean that in an individual case it's more of a problem, just that it happens more often.

Please, invalidating someone else opinion has nothing to do with privilege. Minorities are just as quick to shut down any discussion or dissenting point of view by playing the exclusion card. Your opinion doesn't count because you're not (insert thing here) is used by everyone. And it is always bull****.

Yes, it is bull****. But that's not what I meant when I said what I did; it's too late to take it back now, so here I am explaining it:

Invalidating others' opinions is always wrong. But there are different reasons behind why people do it, and I called out the one I thought was relevant.

[Frozen_Feet]

@Siosilvar: all opinions which make statements about reality are subject to logical analysis and can be invalid. You are NOT entitled to fallacious opinion. This has nothing to do with our respective sexes or minority status.

Again: there is no proof in noparlf's story their mother expressed anger, fear, disgust or resentment towards this trans ex. Said ex is not even present in this scenario and is not adversely effected in any shape or form. The people affected are noparlf's sister and her new boyfriend.

So your whole premise of this "directly affecting" trans people is wrong. It does not directly affect any trans person.

[Icewraith]

No, really, can y'all cis people stop taking over the trans people in the thread? Especially on things that directly relate to us?

Even if you give the mother the benefit of the doubt and assume it wasn't intentional (which I am perfectly willing to do), it's still delegitimizing. When we come up with another word for "unintentionally having the same results as transphobia" we can lump it under that but until then, it's transphobic. Not to the same degree as active hatred, obviously, but it still falls under the same category.

When you start treating people differently based on their genitalia when you don't have first-hand experience with that part of them, that's transphobia. And here it's a poor excuse for not teaching real sex ed to your child.

Discrimination usually carries the context of a negative consequence. Phobia is used in the sense of "has an irrational fear of". I just don't think "transphobic" is the right term for a woman who's willing to let a trans individual sleep with her daughter but not a straight one. A transphobic individual would be fine with the cis person but not the trans person.

Additionally, it's not really discrimination when the possible outcome of the situation changes wildly depending on the individual involved. For instance:

Spoiler: Situation 1

Show

Trans person and cis person with nearly identical, acceptable qualifications apply for the same job.
Outcome: One is hired and one is not. Job gets done. If the hire rate of trans individuals in this situation is significantly above or below 50%, there is probably some discrimination involved against either trans or cis individuals, depending on which way the ratio goes.
Caveat: There may be additional factors stacking the deck against trans individuals or other discriminated groups as a whole from getting the same level of qualification, but that's a separate issue from the possibility of discrimination in the immediate hiring situation where there are approximately equal skills.

Now we have this situation:

Spoiler: Situation 2

Show

Trans male and cis male want to sleep with the same (fertile) cis female.
Outcome if cis male sleeps with cis female: nonzero% chance of pregnancy depending on what, if any, birth control methods are used. Y% Chance of STD depending on what, if any methods of protection are used and the male's partner history and relationship exclusivity.

Outcome if trans male sleeps with cis female (until our tech gets a whole lot better): 0% chance of pregnancy. Y % chance of STD with the same protection and partner qualifiers.

Nonzero % chance of pregnancy is a completely different outcome than 0% chance of pregnancy.

In theory, the mother in this situation would find cis females (who are not also sleeping with cis males), trans women on HRT but no surgery whose sperm factories have definitely shut down, sterile intersex people, and cis men who have lost their testicles to various medical things and are willing to admit it (anything less will likely still have some potential pregnancy rate) equally acceptable bed partners for her daughter. However, I imagine this guy isn't willing to have his testicles removed in order to test the limits of this line of reasoning.

At this point I think the more interesting question is this:

Is there a way to have a conversation where the remaining currently insurmountable biological differences between trans and most cis people (such as fertility capability inconsistent with gender identity) are a significant factor without having someone feel deligitimized? From the strength of emotion that has been going around, I would guess that Siosilvar is feeling deligitimized, regardless of whether or not that has been anyone's intention.

Spoiler: Notes/edits

Show

Re: Project management. A risk with no chance of happening (not even small, no chance) isn't a risk. Using birth control to mitigate the risk of pregnancy isn't the same as having zero risk of pregnancy, because the mitigation attempts can still fail.

edit: Invalidating others' opinions on the basis of fact is different than invalidating others' opinions based on the implicit assumption that one's own opinion is superior. If the assumptions underlying an opinion conflict with reality, that opinion is likely invalid.

Double edit: It's important to note that when you validate a model, it means you have determined that the model accurately represents the portion of reality it was intended to. I think the way "invalidate" is being thrown around has some additional negative connotations (maybe in the sense of automatically dismissing without actually thinking?), and that's not how I use it or expect others to.

Edit III: Spoilered the examples to reduce the length of the post.

Edit IV: and the previous three edits and one Re:.

[Siosilvar]

@Siosilvar

That's not what I said. I fully agree that intent and effect are not the same, but we don't have a good word to distinguish between intent to discriminate and effect of discrimination, except maybe "microaggression" which I used in my first post. But since I can't seem to get that more nuanced opinion across without you treating me as completely and utterly wrong, I don't see the point in continuing this discussion.

Discrimination usually carries the context of a negative consequence. Phobia is used in the sense of "has an irrational fear of". I just don't think "transphobic" is the right term for a woman who's willing to let a trans individual sleep with her daughter but not a straight one. A transphobic individual would be fine with the cis person but not the trans person.

-snip for length-

Fundamentally similar to my opinion, but I'm willing to use the label "transphobic" until we come up with a better one, even though it's not quite correct. "Phobia" as used in "transphobia" and "homophobia" is broader than just fear; it covers pretty nearly everything that others LGBT+ folks regardless of emotion.

Maybe it's cissexist instead of transphobic. That's probably a more accurate term.

Also, you don't have to go so far as surgery to ensure people can't reproduce. I doubt every partner is willing to submit to a sperm viability test, though.

Re: Project management. A risk with no chance of happening (not even small, no chance) isn't a risk. Using birth control to mitigate the risk of pregnancy isn't the same as having zero risk of pregnancy, because the mitigation attempts can still fail.

The risk comment wasn't referring to pregnancy, that was specific to the whole privilege conversation. Expected value vs. actual impact would have been better.

edit: Invalidating others' opinions on the basis of fact is different than invalidating others' opinions based on the implicit assumption that one's own opinion is superior. If the assumptions underlying an opinion conflict with reality, that opinion is likely invalid.

Sure, but we're talking about interpretations of facts here, not the facts themselves. And everybody is apparently working off of different assumptions, because my interpretation of the word "transphobia" is broader than others'. That seems to be the point of contention here.

[Coidzor]

I'm sorry, noparlpf, that's got to be several layers of additional complexity and stress for everyone involved.

Re: The phenomenon of having additional privileges due to transphobic sentiments... Transphobic trans privilege? Transphobic trans preference?

[Ifni]

I think it is partly a semantics issue over people's understanding of the word "transphobic". I agree "cissexist" might be better, but it still has its issues.

I guess my feeling (as a ~cis person) is that there are some (rare) situations where reproductive biology is actually the relevant factor, not gender, and recognizing this is not inherently transphobic or cissexist. For example, I can imagine wanting to be able to talk about issues that are particularly relevant to people who can get pregnant, and I would not want to imply by doing so that I'm only talking about women, or talking about all women, or that any men/NB people to whom this is relevant / women to whom this is irrelevant Are Really Women / Aren't Real Women, etc. I don't think it's transphobic to recognize that, for example, the availability of emergency contraception is more immediately personally relevant to fertile women and trans men/NB people, and less immediately personally relevant to cis men, trans women, and all (cis or trans, male or female or NB) infertile people. That doesn't mean the latter groups of people can't have opinions, but I do tend to weight opinions a bit differently depending on whether they come from people who are directly affected. (Similarly, I try to weight trans people's opinions higher in discussions of issues that affect trans people, because they are - in Siosilvar's words - primary sources as to impact.)

That said, I totally understand why discussion of such situations, or reactions to such situations, might trigger dysphoria or feelings of invalidation in trans people, because reproductive biology is so closely culturally tied to gender, and that tie has been used so often to attack trans people's identities. In an ideal world we might be able to say (correctly) "this particular issue isn't about gender, it is actually about reproduction, it cuts across gender lines and is equally relevant to anyone capable of becoming pregnant", without giving any offense. But in the world we actually live in, I can see how "for purposes of this issue, the vast majority of the people grouped in with you are of a gender other than your own" could make trans folk feel invalidated, especially if there's reason to think that the person doing the grouping is not sincere about their reasons, and secretly believes that e.g. trans women should generally be classified with men.

Maybe it's the kind of topic where trigger warnings / content notes would be useful, especially in safe spaces? This feels to me like one of those cases where I want to simultaneously recognize that open discussion can be quite painful to people I don't want to hurt, even if everyone involved is being careful, but I don't want to say that the discussion is inherently wrong. (See also: most other topics where trigger warnings are a good idea.)

My 2c. May not be worth much.

[ThinkMinty]

It's no wonder if you don't get why it's a double standard; it isn't.

There's two different standards based on categorical divisions. That's a double standard.

It's a simple standard based on trivial fact. Whether it's a good standard is a completely different discussion.

It assumes that someone who might possibly maybe get her pregnant will do such. It's unfair pre-judgement against those of us who can fire gametic yogurt out of our firehoses.

It's also debatably (as there's a debate, it's debatable) positive discrimination against guys who don't have tadpole cannons. Giving the trans guy a pass but the cisgender guy a rocket-block treats both of those guys unfairly as men by valuing them as potential fertilizers first and people second.

@ThinkMinty & golentan: bipolar disorder is not a generic "mental health issue", it's a specific thing and poor judgement comes with the territory. Statistically, bipolar people are more likely to start a sex life sooner and take bigger risks, especially during manic periods; it's how the condition has gotten as prevalent as it is, as it's largely genetic. So worrying about one's bipolar daughter/sister doing something stupid is not exactly unwarranted. Of course, specific knowledge of the invidual trumps general trends; but I'd expect noparlf know her better than people in this thread.

Oh yeah, it is actually borderline personality, not bipolar.

It wasn't even a bipolar issue, and yet the spiel on why we're so goddamn dangerous comes in before the diagnosis, which was not even bipolar disorder. Thanks.

Please, invalidating someone else opinion has nothing to do with privilege. Minorities are just as quick to shut down any discussion or dissenting point of view by playing the exclusion card. Your opinion doesn't count because you're not (insert thing here) is used by everyone. And it is always bull****.

What you're describing is called an ad hominem. Attacking the person, not the argument. Attacking the person in addition to attacking the argument is not an ad hominem. So if you want to get in a good dig, slip the salt pill into the applesauce of a cogent counterpoint.

Here's some information on ad hominems for everyone to enjoy.

That's not what I said. I fully agree that intent and effect are not the same, but we don't have a good word to distinguish between intent to discriminate and effect of discrimination, except maybe "microaggression" which I used in my first post. But since I can't seem to get that more nuanced opinion across without you treating me as completely and utterly wrong, I don't see the point in continuing this discussion.

Not trying to 'splain at you with the following (feel free to take it that way, just tryin' to help you out): The term you're looking for isn't microaggression, it's adverse impact. Adverse impact describes the situation where regardless of intent, there's an adverse impact of unfairness against a group of people. The "racism without racists" phenomenon, as it were.

[Glass Mouse]

Lots of very interesting, thoughtful viewpoints in this discussion. Thanks to everyone, I've definitely gotten some new perspectives to mull over.

Even if you give the mother the benefit of the doubt and assume it wasn't intentional (which I am perfectly willing to do), it's still delegitimizing. When we come up with another word for "unintentionally having the same results as transphobia" we can lump it under that but until then, it's transphobic. Not to the same degree as active hatred, obviously, but it still falls under the same category.

Thank you for this point, and I'm sorry if you feel I'm one of the cis people who have spoken over you. This point ties into a larger discussion about microaggressions, right? Even if the intention is not to do harm, the action may very well still do. And maybe we cannot separate a reasonable pregnancy fear from the issue of transphobia, since the result of one looks and feels so much like the other.

I'm curious, what do you think the mom should do? Deny the boyfriend from sleeping over? That sounds arbitrary to me, but maybe validating his identity is more important than letting the daughter sleep with a pregnancy-safe man she loves. On this point, I would definitely defer to a trans person's judgment.
What would it look like from the other end - if the daughter dated a pre-everything trans woman? There, validating the girl's identity comes with a very real pregnancy risk. Considering this future hypothetical, maybe the only fair solution is for the mom to either deny or allow sleepovers regardless of genitalia?

I realize that the above questions hinge on the premise that the mom's fear is reasonable. The actual solution is for the girl to get on sustainable birth control soon. I'm giving the mom the benefit of the doubt here since noparlpf says it's difficult, but there are non-pill BC options, and I hope she's looking into those, because modern medicine has potentially taken away the need to ask any of those questions in the first place.

My 2c. May not be worth much.

For what it is worth (fellow cis person here), your post perfectly summarizes my own initial reasoning on the topic.

There's two different standards based on categorical divisions. That's a double standard.

I think I get your reasoning. Usually we use "double standard" to denote a completely arbitrary and potentially harmful standard (such as wanting to hire a straight person and not a gay person to do a job that has nothing to do with sex, or deciding that you are allowed to do something while other people aren't for whatever reason).

However, not all standards are arbitrary. "I do not want my SO to sleep in the same bed as people of the gender(s) they're attracted to, but people of other gender(s) is fine". "I will only hire someone who is educated in the required field, not someone who knows nothing about it". "I will not have unprotected sex with someone with whom I could make a baby, but zero-baby-risk sex is okay".

So the mom's standard is only a double standard if we think it is of the form "I will allow some people to sleep over and not others, based on inconsequential and arbitrary metrics". But from noparlpf's description, it sounds like the metric is neither inconsequential nor arbitrary considering the sister's increased risk of pregnancy.

And on that topic...

It wasn't even a bipolar issue, and yet the spiel on why we're so goddamn dangerous comes in before the diagnosis, which was not even bipolar disorder. Thanks.

I get it. There's a ton of really ****ty prejudices flying around about bipolar and BPD people. That is crud. But I don't think the existence of those prejudices trumps the need to talk about some completely existent, practical concerns. As someone with depression, I need to take some precautions in my life to keep up with everyday responsibilites. Admitting this doesn't mean buying into the idea that I'm just a whiny drama queen who can't handle the real world. My friend with bpd has had to develop and stick to her own coping mechanisms. In the case of a child (fifteen is skirting the line, but still), the guardian still has the option to step in and help with some of these things.

The whole point of a mental illness is that it affects people. Maybe noparlpf's sister is the magical fifteen-year old who has already learned how to cope with both her illness and the usual craziness of being a teenager, but I doubt it. That doesn't mean she's dangerous or terrible, just that she has some additional challenges.

The whole discussion comes back to this: It's bloody hard to talk about the real, practical, applicable aspects of people's identities as long as those identities are wrapped up in a constant battle for survival and acknowledgement. I don't know the solution to this. I wish I did.

[Siosilvar]

Not trying to 'splain at you with the following (feel free to take it that way, just tryin' to help you out): The term you're looking for isn't microaggression, it's adverse impact. Adverse impact describes the situation where regardless of intent, there's an adverse impact of unfairness against a group of people. The "racism without racists" phenomenon, as it were.

Exactly. The motivation and the decision weren't transphobic but the results were.

Thank you for this point, and I'm sorry if you feel I'm one of the cis people who have spoken over you. This point ties into a larger discussion about microaggressions, right? Even if the intention is not to do harm, the action may very well still do. And maybe we cannot separate a reasonable pregnancy fear from the issue of transphobia, since the result of one looks and feels so much like the other.

I'm curious, what do you think the mom should do? Deny the boyfriend from sleeping over? That sounds arbitrary to me, but maybe validating his identity is more important than letting the daughter sleep with a pregnancy-safe man she loves. On this point, I would definitely defer to a trans person's judgment.
What would it look like from the other end - if the daughter dated a pre-everything trans woman? There, validating the girl's identity comes with a very real pregnancy risk. Considering this future hypothetical, maybe the only fair solution is for the mom to either deny or allow sleepovers regardless of genitalia?

Asking clarifying questions is pretty much exactly the opposite of taking over people, we're cool.

I do think that making a blanket (no pun intended) decision on sleepovers is the way to go. If I were in that situation and aware of it, I would feel much the same as somebody telling me to my face that I wasn't who I know myself to be. The pregnancy concern is the most respectful one I can think of at the moment, and it's still founded on distrust and assumptions based on a person's genitalia.

[noparlpf]

It assumes that someone who might possibly maybe get her pregnant will do such.

To be fair, the parent of a teenager always needs to assume worst-case scenario.

It wasn't even a bipolar issue, and yet the spiel on why we're so goddamn dangerous comes in before the diagnosis, which was not even bipolar disorder. Thanks.

I'm sorry if anything I said came off like that. What post in particular were you looking at?

Maybe noparlpf's sister is the magical fifteen-year old who has already learned how to cope with both her illness and the usual craziness of being a teenager, but I doubt it. That doesn't mean she's dangerous or terrible, just that she has some additional challenges.

Well, she's on her second hospitalisation in four months...

The whole discussion comes back to this: It's bloody hard to talk about the real, practical, applicable aspects of people's identities as long as those identities are wrapped up in a constant battle for survival and acknowledgement. I don't know the solution to this. I wish I did.

Yeah. That's part of why we have this thread as well as the support thread, so some of the more triggering questions can be kept separate for people who aren't in a good place to hear them. Although I guess that trigger warning doesn't necessarily extend to discussion of other mental health issues.

Exactly. The motivation and the decision weren't transphobic but the results were.

That's it. I've been trying to figure out how to phrase that thought for a couple of days. This head cold hasn't been helping things much.

I do think that making a blanket (no pun intended) decision on sleepovers is the way to go. If I were in that situation and aware of it, I would feel much the same as somebody telling me to my face that I wasn't who I know myself to be. The pregnancy concern is the most respectful one I can think of at the moment, and it's still founded on distrust and assumptions based on a person's genitalia.

Disclaimer: I'm probably not somebody who should ever be a parent. That said, if it were my kids... I'm not sure whether I'd rather 1) just not allow any sleepovers in the same room past age 10, regardless of gender, sexuality, or fertility, or 2) allow sleepovers for anybody but make it explicitly clear that any sexual contact under my roof will lead to that friend's permanent exile from the house, followed with an offhand comment about how I spay/neuter things for a living.

[Icewraith]

To be fair, the parent of a teenager always needs to assume worst-case scenario.



I'm sorry if anything I said came off like that. What post in particular were you looking at?



Well, she's on her second hospitalisation in four months...



Yeah. That's part of why we have this thread as well as the support thread, so some of the more triggering questions can be kept separate for people who aren't in a good place to hear them. Although I guess that trigger warning doesn't necessarily extend to discussion of other mental health issues.



That's it. I've been trying to figure out how to phrase that thought for a couple of days. This head cold hasn't been helping things much.



Disclaimer: I'm probably not somebody who should ever be a parent. That said, if it were my kids... I'm not sure whether I'd rather 1) just not allow any sleepovers in the same room past age 10, regardless of gender, sexuality, or fertility, or 2) allow sleepovers for anybody but make it explicitly clear that any sexual contact under my roof will lead to that friend's permanent exile from the house, followed with an offhand comment about how I spay/neuter things for a living.

The problem here is that your rule only prohibits sex under your own roof while simultaneously giving the teenager a way to rebel against both the spirit (don't have sex yet) and letter (don't have sex HERE) of your wishes - AND making the activity more enticing by increasing the risk. It also encourages your kids to hide things (their sex lives) from you. With version 2, you're also giving the outcome you're trying to prevent (having sex here) the perfect opportunity to happen by allowing anyone to sleep over.

The tricky part with parenting and sex is you really, really want to have your rules followed, you want your kid to still trust you with sensitive or problematic information, and you don't want to give them such a pile of neuroses that they can't enjoy sex when it's finally ok for them to do so.

[YossarianLives]

Hey, everyone.

Could I get some advice about writing agender (correct terminology?) races in a fantasy setting? The world I've been designing for a couple years has progressed a lot, starting off as a pretty generic world I used for D&D and I want to redesign some of the classic fantasy races (elves & dwarves) to not have any physical sex or standard concept of gender identity.

Right now I'm considering having the dwarves pretty much all appear male; they all have beards and reproduce using spores. The elves on the other hand, are all very androgynous - they used to be a civilization of humans who became bound to a dark god who gave them supernatural powers while also slowly removing their ability to naturally reproduce. They've now forgotten about their heritage and happily serve the deity who they rely on to give them new children.

As Elves and Dwarves are both rather separated from the outside world, the other civilizations haven't really caught on yet. They assume that only Dwarven men are allowed to leave the homeland and no-one can quite agree on the sex of every individual elf.

Biological improbabilities aside, I'm guess I'm just looking to see if anyone finds what I wrote offensive or ignorant. I really don't want to make anyone uncomfortable so I'd appreciate any feedback.

Any ideas on how I could improve my ideas are welcome too.

[EternalMelon]

Hey, everyone.

Could I get some advice about writing agender (correct terminology?) races in a fantasy setting? The world I've been designing for a couple years has progressed a lot, starting off as a pretty generic world I used for D&D and I want to redesign some of the classic fantasy races (elves & dwarves) to not have any physical sex or standard concept of gender identity.

Right now I'm considering having the dwarves pretty much all appear male; they all have beards and reproduce using spores. The elves on the other hand, are all very androgynous - they used to be a civilization of humans who became bound to a dark god who gave them supernatural powers while also slowly removing their ability to naturally reproduce. They've now forgotten about their heritage and happily serve the deity who they rely on to give them new children.

As Elves and Dwarves are both rather separated from the outside world, the other civilizations haven't really caught on yet. They assume that only Dwarven men are allowed to leave the homeland and no-one can quite agree on the sex of every individual elf.

Biological improbabilities aside, I'm guess I'm just looking to see if anyone finds what I wrote offensive or ignorant. I really don't want to make anyone uncomfortable so I'd appreciate any feedback.

Any ideas on how I could improve my ideas are welcome too.

Nothing here seems more offensive than the standard implications fantasy races have. I'm assuming you're familiar with Terry Pratchett's dwarves, and I don't think there’s ever been a kerfuffle over them. In terms of mono-sex races if Steven Universe, Mass Effect, and Star Trek can get away with their implications in our society you should be fine there as well. Although both the Asari and the Gems look incredibly similar to human females so that might tint things in lesbian-coloured glasses.

Also, I'm imagining hundreds of dwarves getting drunk and shaking beard-spores onto the ground of a giant messhall being the cultual way of them reproducing; where the beard spores incubate in the thin layer of alcohol covering the ground.

[goto124]

Masterkerfuffle, you have the advantage of having an entirely made-up fantasy society that doesn't even have standard reproduction. I would say it's hard to have unfortunate implications.

Though, one random question that pops to my mind is: what bits do the elves have 'down there', and are those bits compatible with other human(oids) even if they aren't fertile? I re-read your post, and realized you mentioned them not having a physical sex.