perhaps it shows more a lack of understanding of medical jargon for you?
It's just motivated reasoning. These people like to say "but language defines", "but tradition says", "but genetics defines", "but nature defines" etc..., when really all that is an attempted distraction from their internal bigotry. If they were honest, they would just say, "Hey, to be perfectly honest, deep down I'm actually a transphobe (and/or homophobe), but I make up these various rationalizations why I won't admit that, because it protects my ego. And no, I'm not really interested in learning about the science, or about these people's actual experience, especially if science or other evidence refutes my dogmatic position. Besides, this way I get to call the other side bigots and feel superior! Winning!!!".
So, are you going to tell your buddy with body dysmorphia that, yes, he SHOULD cut off his arm so that his body on the outside FEELS like his body on the inside? Is that a swell idea for you?
the truth of human nature is most people are seeking rationalization for their already deeply held illogical beliefs that came from upbringing, experiences, culture etc
My point was that trans medicine isn't a new field. Growing, yes. New, no. Nazis burned books about trans-related healthcare in the 1930s. "New" is a bad way to describe that gives hateful people ammo against it. They still argue that trans people just started existing, or the worst of them that trans people DON'T exist. Feeding them by telling them "this is all new" helps nobody. If it's medical jargon, fine, but the layperson isn't going to take it to mean what you're describing here without full context anyway.
I am sorry but this is like arguing "theory" in the sense of the common term versus the scientific term. "New" in medicine doesn't mean that it happened recently, it means that the research is constantly changing, results are not yet conclusive, and we still need to conduct more research. Research into the flu shot wouldn't be considered "new" as we have had enough time to determine all of the side effects, formulas, and so on, so it's not considered "new" research. This is despite the fact that the flu shot was invented in 1942, way after early modern trans research started in the early 1900s. "New" in medicine isn't about age, it's about the depth of knowledge, documentation, and research available.
Just because transphobes are misusing medical terms doesn't change anything. This is like saying "gravity isn't real because it's just a theory." Which is a clear misunderstanding of the term "theory." The same can be applied here with "new."
not saying trans people are new, but that the field is new and honestly in its infancy if we are all being honest with ourselves
See, here's where you are going WAAAY past 'equal treatment' to 'privileged' or 'special treatment'.
I never said anything that would imply any of this and you're putting a lot of words in my mouth for someone who's claiming I'm trying to control what other people say. Not once did I call anyone here a transphobe, even though some people clearly are. Not once did I tell anyone what they can and can't say, even though I said saying things a certain way perpetuates harm.
Yet unfortunately Intersex people like me are forced to go through that all the time in our modern world, but people think that is okay because they're Intersex.
I have to be real with you, people will find any excuse to misuse terms and information. For example, people misuse trans-related statistics on self-harm, often misquoting the suicide rates in so many ways. The biggest misuse is that the actual rate is lower as they are counting the "attempted or considered rate." They also ignore the information as to why the rates of self-harm and suicide attempts are so high by literally doing the thing explained in the very statistics they are misquoting. Simply put, just because a term, information, or anything else can be misused, that doesn't mean it's inappropriate to use them for their intended purpose. Again, this is like asking someone to stop using "theory" when talking about scientific theories. Just because someone doesn't understand the usage of the term, is not my problem and quite honestly shouldn't be anyone else's problem. Let them make fools of themselves for thinking "new" in this sense literally means "recent," and they are just showing their ignorance on the subject.
I agree overall. There's a distinction here but I'm done arguing semantics as it's a waste of time.
I'm good on what I think. I'd love to hear a logical and non-emotional argument to make me think otherwise.
That's fine but I am going to continue to use the terms used in the field that I am studying. I see no reason to dumb down my language to accommodate people looking to misuse it. If they misuse the term "new," that's them showing their ignorance and is a sign that they aren't coming at this with an educated opinion on the matter.
Never asked you to stop, just gave my opinion on what the layperson may believe that to mean (as I've seen it many times).
And now you can be reassured that they are clearly demonstrating a complete lack of understanding of the terms they are throwing around.
I promise you I don't. You keep it up, champ.
@
Xdqwerty:
@
The Real Jdbye:
