Short answer: By what the experts say, and they say transgender people should be treated as the gender they identify as. Period.
Long answer: A lot of PhDs did a fuckload of research over a century plus and showed that, yeah, gender is super fucking complicated and doesn’t map out to male/female based on your genitals at birth (let alone for the reason that, you know, maybe you might be born with a penis AND a vagina or ovaries AND testes or female chromosomes AND male genetalia, etc.), and if people get some simple gender affirmation, they live better and happier lives, and that applies to cisgender people, as well.
Easy answer: You can claim to be fucking anything you want. Who actually gives a shit? Let people be themselves if it don’t hurt anyone. What’s the problem with being a transgirl or a transboy? Why do we even have multiple bathrooms? That just seems to punish all sorts of people for no reason.
If you WANT to say transracial or transspecies or transnational is a thing, by all means do some research and prove it through studies and peer review. Until then, it is unlikely to be recognized the same way that transgender has because it has a lot of supporting evidence.
If you WANT to say transracial or transspecies or transnational is a thing, by all means do some research and prove it through studies and peer review. Until then, it is unlikely to be recognized the same way that transgender has because it has a lot of supporting evidence.
I want to play a game with you. You’re demanding evidence for something that some people have a lot of experience with, but most people don’t care to investigate. I wanna do the same thing.
I’ve decided that fish aren’t real. I want you to link a scientific journal article that says fish are real. Not one that presupposes the existence of fish in general, one that asks if fish actually exist and asserts an answer from evidence.
If you can’t prove fish are real, why should anyone have to prove otherkin are real?
Buuuuuuuut, if you really want scientific articles on otherkin…
I think you misunderstood, but I’m not presupposing otherkin isn’t a thing. I am saying it doesn’t have the same type of intellectual backing as transgender experience does, so it isn’t treated the same. I think that is unfortunate, even if there are studies done as well as expressed experiences, especially within indigenous peoples (and you could argue that is part of the reason fewer studies are done on it.)
I’m not really here to debate whether fish exist because I know fish exist and I can drive to most lakes and find fish in them and I can go to a few museums and see fish remains and I can go to pet stores and find fish for sale and I can go to a grocery store and find fish to eat. Doing that same thing with people and their personal experiences is much harder since it’s more of a personal experience and not, you know, a visible phenomenon, and so it’s going to be harder to convince people a personal experience is real if it’s not their experience and especially if it’s not a common one.
Au contrare. I can go speak to otherkin right now. In fact, I’m in conversation with one about how the cartoon Generator Rex uses nanites as a parallel to the AIDS crisis. Otherkin quite clearly and obviously exist. I see otherkin much more often than I see fish.
Now, most people see fish more often, because most people are boring, but that’s no reason for disbelief. The point is that there’s little point proving something so non-controversial exists. Nobody cares. You won’t get a research grant for something so irrelevant.
Asking people to provide research studies for this kind of thing is absurd. The only reason all these studies on trans people exist is because the media politicises our existence. When you treat otherkin the same way, you’re politicising their existence too.
Short answer: By what the experts say, and they say transgender people should be treated as the gender they identify as. Period.
Long answer: A lot of PhDs did a fuckload of research over a century plus and showed that, yeah, gender is super fucking complicated and doesn’t map out to male/female based on your genitals at birth (let alone for the reason that, you know, maybe you might be born with a penis AND a vagina or ovaries AND testes or female chromosomes AND male genetalia, etc.), and if people get some simple gender affirmation, they live better and happier lives, and that applies to cisgender people, as well.
Easy answer: You can claim to be fucking anything you want. Who actually gives a shit? Let people be themselves if it don’t hurt anyone. What’s the problem with being a transgirl or a transboy? Why do we even have multiple bathrooms? That just seems to punish all sorts of people for no reason.
If you WANT to say transracial or transspecies or transnational is a thing, by all means do some research and prove it through studies and peer review. Until then, it is unlikely to be recognized the same way that transgender has because it has a lot of supporting evidence.
I want to play a game with you. You’re demanding evidence for something that some people have a lot of experience with, but most people don’t care to investigate. I wanna do the same thing.
I’ve decided that fish aren’t real. I want you to link a scientific journal article that says fish are real. Not one that presupposes the existence of fish in general, one that asks if fish actually exist and asserts an answer from evidence.
If you can’t prove fish are real, why should anyone have to prove otherkin are real?
Buuuuuuuut, if you really want scientific articles on otherkin…
https://go.openathens.net/redirector/murdoch.edu.au?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.proquest.com%2Fscholarly-journals%2Fjackal-city-empirical-phenomenological-study%2Fdocview%2F2956849512%2Fse-2%3Faccountid%3D12629
https://czasopisma.uni.lodz.pl/qualit/article/view/8147
https://estsjournal.org/index.php/ests/article/view/252
https://doi.org/10.1525/nr.2012.15.3.65
I think you misunderstood, but I’m not presupposing otherkin isn’t a thing. I am saying it doesn’t have the same type of intellectual backing as transgender experience does, so it isn’t treated the same. I think that is unfortunate, even if there are studies done as well as expressed experiences, especially within indigenous peoples (and you could argue that is part of the reason fewer studies are done on it.)
I’m not really here to debate whether fish exist because I know fish exist and I can drive to most lakes and find fish in them and I can go to a few museums and see fish remains and I can go to pet stores and find fish for sale and I can go to a grocery store and find fish to eat. Doing that same thing with people and their personal experiences is much harder since it’s more of a personal experience and not, you know, a visible phenomenon, and so it’s going to be harder to convince people a personal experience is real if it’s not their experience and especially if it’s not a common one.
Au contrare. I can go speak to otherkin right now. In fact, I’m in conversation with one about how the cartoon Generator Rex uses nanites as a parallel to the AIDS crisis. Otherkin quite clearly and obviously exist. I see otherkin much more often than I see fish.
Now, most people see fish more often, because most people are boring, but that’s no reason for disbelief. The point is that there’s little point proving something so non-controversial exists. Nobody cares. You won’t get a research grant for something so irrelevant.
Asking people to provide research studies for this kind of thing is absurd. The only reason all these studies on trans people exist is because the media politicises our existence. When you treat otherkin the same way, you’re politicising their existence too.