The Volokh Conspiracy

Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent

Free Speech

Transgender Applicant's Name Change Application May Be Filed Under Seal


So held the New Jersey Appellate Division last week in In the Matter of Application of T.I.C.-C. to Assume the Name of A.B.C.-C. (by Judge Michael Haas, joined by Judges Hany Mawla and Stephanie Ann Mitterhoff):

Appellant A.B.C.-C. is a transgender man who sought to change his name to conform his identification documents with his gender identity. As part of his application, appellant submitted evidence showing transgender people are subject to a particularized threat to their safety based upon their identity, and asked that the record of his name change be sealed to protect him from such discrimination and violence. The trial court denied appellant's request. Having considered the issues appellant presents in light of the applicable law, we are satisfied he demonstrated good cause to seal the record. Therefore, we reverse the trial court's denial of appellant's motion, order that the record be sealed, and remand for any necessary further proceedings….

[W]e are satisfied appellant established good cause to seal the record of his name change application. First, the record amply supports a conclusion that "disclosure will likely cause a clearly defined and serious injury" to appellant. Second, the record fully supports a finding that appellant's "interest in privacy substantially outweighs the presumption that all court and administrative records are open for public inspection pursuant to R[ule] 1:38."

The two prongs of this court's inquiry are intertwined in this case because the "clearly defined and serious injury" to appellant is the violation of his "interest in privacy" in being transgender. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine a more intimate, personal, and private matter than whether a person's gender identity conforms with the sex they were assigned at birth, typically based upon the existence and appearance of their reproductive organs, and their chromosomal makeup….

In denying appellant's motion, the trial court misunderstood and misapplied the governing law. Prior case law may have involved past physical violence or threats. However, contrary to the court's understanding, the standard set in Rule 1:38-11(b)(1) does not require that the "clearly defined and serious injury" be physical harm or the threat of physical harm. Nor does the rule require that the movant have already suffered physical harm or the threat of physical harm. In fact, the language of Rule 1:38-11(b)(1) evidences an intent to prevent harm from occurring….

Appellant presented the court with evidence that transgender individuals face violence, harassment, and discrimination because of their gender identity. This is commonly recognized in case law as well. Accordingly, there was no reason for the court to discount appellant's fears, or assume they were unfounded….

On the other side of the ledger, the only expressed public interest in name change applications is protecting against those seeking to avoid or obstruct criminal prosecution, avoid creditors, or perpetrate a criminal or civil fraud. In this case, however, there are no concerns that appellant is seeking to avoid or obstruct criminal prosecutions, avoid creditors, or perpetrate a fraud. Moreover, appellant notified the Division [of Criminal Justice, Records and Identification Section,] of his application, as required under Rule 4:72-3, and the Division chose not to participate in the case and made no objection to appellant's application. Thus, a fair consideration of the law and the facts warranted granting appellant's motion.

The trial court also considered a number of irrelevant factors in denying appellant's motion to seal the record and his motion for reconsideration of that decision. The court denied the motions, in part, because appellant had already chosen to reveal he was transgender to individuals he trusted with that information. However, that did not mean appellant should be compelled to disclose this information to the world, including those who may do harm to him as a result, in order to obtain a change of name that affirms his gender identity. The purpose of sealing the record was to protect appellant's right to share his transgender identity only with those he trusts, thus avoiding the psychological and possibly physical harm he would suffer by making the information public….

NEXT: Today in Supreme Court History: February 20, 1933

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. So, if I'm reading this right, they're preserving his (Assumed, but usually.) "intimate, personal, and private" right to defraud people about his actual sex?

    Wouldn't want potential heterosexual sex partners to know that they were actually having sex with a guy, after all. Or even marrying one.

    1. they want to have their cake and eat it you.

      I would have no issue with them fully committing and having the medical surgery to change their gender as those who declare themselves transexual; many of which reject the term transgender.

      Seriously your just cross dressing because you can just change your mind and resume your naturally born gender role.

      I won't be surprised if some don't take this route to disrupt more sports to make a point in the future.

      1. " have their cake and eat it you."


    2. If you're having sex with a guy and don't know he's a guy you're doing it wrong...

      1. Hi, Queenie. Do you believe rape victims have a right to defend themselves and to kill their rapists? Do you believe rape by deception should be included in this principle. Guy takes a beautiful woman to a hotel room, feels a dick, murder is fully justified. To deter.

        1. We do know the names of the scumbag lawyers who decided on this atrocity. Impeach them.

          Judges Hany Mawla and Stephanie Ann Mitterhoff

        2. Nobody puts the ill in mental illness quite like Behar!

          1. Queenie is my favorite denier. It insists delusions are true. My second favorite is Volokh.

            Queenie do you have tenure?

            1. Deniers are disqualified from teaching.

      2. Or possibly a virgin who didn't study human anatomy.

        1. Or possibly Julian Castro who believes transgender women are entitled to abortion rights. But when he said that I knew all of this would never work. So about trans women in sports—the gold medal winning women’s soccer team had a non female on the team. So how did the IOC determine the individual was eligible? Did they require a certain number of months to have passed since the person switched genders?? Did the IOC require the individual to meet certain hormone levels?? You know what they did?? They just looked at the sex at birth which was female and that made her eligible. So shouldn’t that be the standard for everyone??

        2. I think this decision is badly flawed, but this is a pretty stupid argument against it.

          1. Well, I did link to that Lambda legal defense site, where they asserted that deceiving somebody you're marrying about your sex is a legal right. I reason that if you were born "Bob" and don't change your name, it would kind of get in the way of carrying off that particular deception.

            Evidence is, 'transgenders' don't just think it's random passerbys that they're entitled to mislead. They think they're entitled to mislead potential sex partners, too, and even potential spouses.

            As to Queen Amalthea's point, while the 'gender reassignment' surgery doesn't really change your sex, or produce a result that a guy who'd had sex with an actual woman would mistake, I do think it possible, as I said, that a virgin who didn't study human anatomy could be taken in.

            1. Christ on a bike.

              Brett says:
              "Well, I did link to that Lambda legal defense site, where they asserted that deceiving somebody you're marrying about your sex is a legal right. "

              Actual claim:
              "In the U.S., there is no legal duty to disclose to a partner even if you are getting married. "

              Do you actually disagree with that statement? If you have a legal right to do that which is not proscribed, is it not true that trans people have a legal right to not disclose to prospective spouses their gender histories?

              1. Which is to say, that they have a legal right to defraud somebody into thinking they're marrying the opposite sex, when they're really not.

                I linked to that to establish that these people actually think they're entitled to defraud sex partners and potential spouses. That the legal system agrees with them only makes it worse.

                1. "I linked to that to establish that these people actually think they're entitled to defraud sex partners and potential spouses. That the legal system agrees with them only makes it worse."

                  To state the obvious, the statement which you seem to find so objectional is just an anodyne statement of fact, it was not a normative assertion. But, you get that, and your feigned outrage is just more evidence of dumb-fuckery.

                  1. An anodyne statement that you can defraud a heterosexual into marrying somebody who's the same sex, and it's legal. Nothing is anodyne about that.

                    1. "Nothing is anodyne about that."

                      Of course it is. The statement is as anodyne as the trivially true statement that what is not illegal is legal.

                      I am curious what you think the law should be about disclosing gender history to a prospective spouse. What should the remedy be?

                    2. I would think at least rape by deception.

                    3. "Anodyne: not likely to provoke dissent or offense; inoffensive, often deliberately so."

                      Definitionally, not anodyne.

                    4. "I would think at least rape by deception."

                      Are you asserting that rape by deception is an actual thing?

                      So, if you're out one night and pick up a tasty tart who skillfully and succesfully sucks you off, if you later find out that you have engaged in a financial transaction with a female from birth, you've been raped? Who knew?

                    5. "Definitionally, not anodyne."

                      You are way too easy to trigger. So easy that it almost takes the fun out of it. Almost.

                    6. Look, Stella, you're of course free to not be upset about something, but the meaning of "anodyne" isn't, "Doesn't disturb StellaLink_the dog." It's that it isn't likely to disturb pretty much anybody.

                      That transgenders are legally free to defraud people into same-sex marriages is about as far from "anodyne" as it gets without bodies piling up. An enormous percentage of the population would find it offensive.

              2. I read Brett's link and had exactly your reaction as far 'legal right' vs. 'no duty'.

                And I also thought that was bad advice, because if your new bride/groom is unhappy about the wedding night surprise, they will just get an annulment. But when I went googling for the permissible grounds for annulment, it looks like fraud would be the relevant grounds. And I'm not sure everyone is on the same page about whether that would be considered fraud. If you are of the position that Fred->Frederica is actually a woman, then there isn't any fraud - Frederica's new husband can't get an annulment based on fraud unless you agree that XY Frederica isn't exactly like all the XX women.

                I tend to think there would be widespread agreement that Frederica had committed fraud sufficient to annul, but if so then it seems like failing to disclose would be really bad advice from a practical POV, so maybe Lambda would argue against annulment.

        3. Considering all the topics that "Freedom-loving" Republicans continue to try and ban from schools, your prediction becomes more likely by the day.

        4. "Or possibly a virgin who didn't study human anatomy."

          On that question, I will yield to your expertise.

          1. My relevant expertise, aside from not being a virgin, is 4 years studying human anatomy and physiology in college, and a passing acquaintance with the technical details of 'gender reassignment' surgery.

            It's my opinion that a virgin with little exposure to the details of female anatomy might be fooled, but nobody else.

            1. If it took you four years of college study to figure out the differences between female and male anatomy, you're a slow learner.

              1. Well, to be fair, the whole point of the 'gender affirming' surgery is to obscure that very difference. So it's hardly a shocker that it would succeed in the case of somebody who didn't know anything about the real thing besides that it should go in rather than out.

    3. The scumbag lawyer profession continuing its practice of delusional, fraudulent, and sick tyranny and oppression of the public. Almost all lawyer doctrines are fake, delusional, fraudulent, in pursuit of the rent and of power over the hapless public.

      1. Mayor McNutty's Manifesto!

        1. Queenie, do you have tenure? Tell the class.

  2. Um, no? Never? The point of having a COURT approve a formal name change is so that there is a PUBLIC record of who Jane Smith used to be. And for the court to make sure that there is no nefarious purpose in the name change, a process the PUBLIC gets to oversee.

    1. Thats what I thought also. If their old name is hidden, how can we know, legally, they were that person ever... how can what they did and owned be traced for any legal purpose.

      1. Is there a need for that, or does the name change proceeding settle all the issues (creditors, prosecutions, etc.) that might have required knowing the previous name? It sounded that way to me but I am missing a lot of background.

        1. It's unclear to me how you could settle all creditors, prosecutions, etc... considering future prosecutions or creditors may come forward looking for the previous name. It would be impossible to know that there will never be a criminal matter or debt that arises under the old name.

          1. Yeah, I kind of wonder about that: Name changes are normally public records, exactly so that you, under your new name, can be linked to your past self. Creditors can see what your name formerly was.

    2. Indeed. In fact, given that this appears to be a petition for name change only (not name and gender) and the court didn't appear to require any particularized evidence of potential harm, bad actors could trivially exploit this mechanism for anonymous same-gender name changes as long as they're ok with a neutral name that won't raise the court's suspicion (Cameron, Skyler, etc.).

      They could even change it again down the road if they wanted to -- there would be no record of the prior petition to raise red flags, and since the chain back to their original name had been broken there would be no basis for public objection....

    3. I agree with you as well. Presumably there's some people who dealt with this person under their deadname. It benefits everyone- including the Applicant- if there's a publicly available way to establish "OK T is now A".

      1. Having said that, if there were specific threats against this person that could be shown to be ameliorable by a sealed record, that would be a different issue (that would be comparable to going into the Witness Security Program).

        But that doesn't look like what this Applicant presented. Rather, they made the generic argument that trans activists make that somehow the very fact of transitioning exposes a person ipso facto to violence and threats of harm. That's apparently a very effective argument for activists to make, but this is a court proceeding and you actually should have to prove stuff and not just assert it.

        1. " somehow the very fact of transitioning exposes a person ipso facto to violence and threats of harm"

          Uh, yeah.

          1. Uh, no. Learn some basic statistics.

          2. No it doesn't, Queen. Let's assume trans people are statistically more likely to face violence. That doesn't mean that any particular trans person is in danger, any more than the fact that Black Americans in general are more likely to face violence from drug dealers in their neighborhood proves that some Black celebrity living in the Hollywood Hills, or a member of the Obama family, is more likely to be shot by a drug dealer.

            There's also the fact that the trans population is not one population. It's several. High school age enbies in the suburbs don't face any special increase in threats or violence; trans sex workers in Brazil do.

            There's also a lot of people who question those statistics as well, based on method of collection, etc.

            It's definitely not enough by itself to override the right of access to court proceedings.

            1. In response to why they feared violence after transitioning "well, statistics show it happens quite a lot" would seem to be a good response, consistent with what studies show.

              1. Statistics show no such thing. Nor do they show how sealing this application would protect the petitioner from violence.

              2. No it isn't. We don't override significant rights based solely on non-individuated statistics.

                1. The Publius Precedent seems to contradict that assertion.

                  (Is the Publius who inclined Prof. Volokh to depart from an asserted customary dislike for pseudonymity the same Publius who once worked at South Texas College Of Law Houston? The clingerverse may be a very small world indeed!)

                  1. "Would seem" to whom? That memorandum of law (not a decision, so it's not even a precedent) nowhere relies on statistics of any kind. So it has no relevance to Dilan Esper's assertion.

                    But half credit for not dishing out your usually Pavlovian reaction. A post of yours without the term "clinger" or "betters" is a novelty, even if it is fatuous.

                    1. This site limits links.

                      Here is a decision that appears to confirm my recollection that Publius was permitted to proceed pseudonymously (as Prof. Volokh requested).

                      I don't recall statistics being involved in the plea; it was more 'please protect the poor, aggrieved right-winger from accountability for his conservative conduct and Republican arguments.'

              3. Granting arguendo the accuracy of that data, the fact that the vast majority of transgender victims in that study don't think that they were targeted because of their gender identity would suggest that citing the statistics would not, in fact, seem to be a "good response".

            2. What are "enbies"?

              1. Enbies are non-binary people. There's not really great definition of the concept, but it is people who at least assert that they reject gender designations and self-identify as nonbinary.

                They are considered to be under the trans umbrella. However, given the slippery definition and lack of history, there's certainly no basis to say that they face violence or threats of violence simply because they ID as non-binary.

                1. Basically anyone who wants to confuse others, such as by preferring plural pronouns. It's a natural concept with a silly pretense of distinction. Some people prefer the gentle feel of silk; are they more effeminate than those who prefer, say, cotton or wool? Boxers vs briefs. Bears vs smooth-shaven. Long hair vs crew-cut or shaved. Physical sex/gender are binary except for the rare hermaphrodite; but personality has a zillion dimensions and descriptions described by malleable language, and the woke like to confuse the two realms because their whole ideology depends on chaos.

                2. Thanks Dilan.

          3. Hi, Queenie. All blacks are 4 times more likely to be the victims of violent to to Democrat policy protecting, privileging, and enpowering the black thug.

            Were blacks excluded from your garbage study? I do not read denier garbage arguments. Just tell the class.

            Alse are you tenured?

    4. Agree with all of you. Name changes should be public. Whether to a different gender or not.

  3. No one will ever outwoke the courts of NJ.

  4. Far more important issue -
    Transgender is a misdiagnosed mental illness that can not be cured with surgery and hormones.

    anyone supporting transgender rights in the name of equity or compassion is enabling a dangerous misdiagnosis.

    1. Whatever you day, Dr. Dallas.

      1. It takes a really sick and delusional person to believe that transgender is a valid diagnosis of the persons mental illness and the treatment prescribed (hormones and surgery ) will cure that mental illness.

        1. Is it any more delusional than adult-onset superstition involving a man in the sky who demands firm compliance with random rules about Friday filets, anyday cheeseburgers, shrimp cocktails, strange hats, magic underwear, (certain) (politically charged) vaccinations, and the like?

          People who live in clinger houses have no stones to throw.

          1. "Yay, we're no worse than those cra cra folk over there!" Inspiring.

            1. Are you asserting that religious believers are crazy, Life of Brian?

              Gullible, sure. But crazy?

              1. I'm not asserting anything, my dear Rev -- just mocking your ill-considered swipe.

      2. If i say I am the Paraclete of Caborga, I get forced medication. If I say, I am the opposite sex, I get totally privileged by the scumbag lawyer profession. Which belief is more obvious and extreme in its falsehood?

    2. That was the state of the art in medical knowledge around 1950.

      If it were mental illness, some of the treatments would have succeeded. In practice a million dollars of inpatient "treatment" did nothing for this person: So eventually the medical community updated their ideas based on facts.

      There are brain structures different between men and women. Peer-reviewed neuroscience beginning in the 90s has found that those structures, in trans people, match their self-reported identity and not their swimsuit zones. Start with, and yes of course they controlled for whether hormone treatment had caused it.

      It can be hard to wrap your mind around if you don't realize there's a galaxy of knowledge beyond high school biology, which face it, is right more than 98-99% of the time. But there is good scientific evidence now that there are people whose brains develop to give them an internal gender identity that doesn't match what the delivery room doctor saw.

      1. If the study published in nature was true, there would not be such a high percent of the transgender trying to transition back to their original gender.
        I am not disputing that there some individuals that might fit the category in the study published by nature, but overwhelming majority are individuals misdiagnosed by the mental health profession - as the de jure diagnosis.

        1. 3% doesn't seem a very high percentage.
          That's the average of 80,000 cases in 4 nations.

      2. Brain tumors destroying the ability to speak change physical brain structure. They can be seen in imaging studies. That not make the mute stroke victim normal, just because it is brain based. All behavior is brain based. That's 16th Century high high school education.

      3. There's a lot of research that goes the other way on that one. For one thing, trans people's sexual orientations seem to be very similar to those of others assigned the same sex at birth, and not anything like cis people of their adopted gender identity.

        I agree there's no reason to call this a mental illness- although the underlying condition of gender dysphoria can sometimes be related to certain paraphilias. But the claims about different brains appear overstated, especially with respect to late onset gender dysphoria.

        1. At 10, I wanted to be a pilot, then a police officer. My occupational preference changed once a month after reading about the glamor of one. Under no circumstances should anyone transition until age 18 is reached, the legal age of consent. Jaz from the TV show should have been removed for child abuse. Of course, he was not, because of the feminist, PC lawyers running the child abuse show. In addition he was depressed. That alone impaired his decision making ability. He did not improve either after chemical nor after surgical transition. He needs to be on suicide watch. The rate of depression and of suicide is high in this population. After transition, it triples. There should be full liability for such surgeons.

          His treatment with hormones from age 11 prevented the development of tissue in his perineum, resulting in bad complications requiring skin grafts to rebuild his vagina.

  5. This will soon be a recommended way of avoiding creditors. Just do a couple of anonymous transgender name changes. Soon we will have anonymous name changes for those on sex offender registries.

    1. This was my original thought as well, but it only works for those creditors that for whatever reason didn't require your SSN. It's hard to get a new SSN without particularized evidence of a real problem, so the name change just goes against the old number.

      1. The SSA has gotten better about SSN fraud but it is far from perfect. It might not be legal, but with a little "asking around" you are going to be able to get one that functions for just about everything in society including claiming benefits to which you never contributed. You can't issue literally hundreds of millions of numbers over the course of 90 years and not expect a at least a small percentage of those to end up being fraudulent or used for such purposes.

    2. Good idea. Sex offender cannot get a lease. Claim to be transgender with a different name.

      Did you know I too am trnsgender? I demand to shower with the cheerleaders after a gym workout.

      1. Read some of the anonymous interviews that have been done with the UPenn "trans" swimmer's teammates. Apparently "she" still has all the equipment of a man and still is romantically involved with women. The teammates feel exceptionally uncomfortable in various stages of undress and showering with "her" but can't/won't say anything for fear of retaliation or being called a bigot. Basically "she" is living the wet dream of what was portrayed in many 80's "coming of age" movies.

        1. Does the dude richly deserve an ass kicking or not? Add him to the Williams Institute study. Where are the males students of Penn to protect their coed friends? They have been feminized by the scumbag lawyer profession. Ass kicking should really begin with the scumbag lawyer profession. All PC is case.

        2. If this is not a case of sexual harassment imposed by the U of Penn deliberately, then nothing is sexual harassment.

        3. A few years back, in a different context, this blog mentioned some Supreme Court constitutioal right to bot be forced to expose your junk to someone of another junk, nor be forced to be exposed to it.

          So much for that.

  6. This is playing out, just like every other front in the "culture war" to be a blatant double standard. If you are cop good luck with proceeding anonymously because people have the blah blah blah right to know, etc. Want to change your sex, sure go right ahead. We understand. It is hard. Here is your pass.

    This is not going to end well....

    1. "If you are cop good luck with proceeding anonymously because people have the blah blah blah right to know, etc."

      Different country, of course, but they let the cops in Canada remove all identifying markers before siccing them on the convoy.

      1. I was referencing the cop in Ohio that sued for libel, in general broad brush strokes. But, yes, perhaps I should revise and extend my remarks:
        "If your particular class or identity is not favored by current government policy and/or practice...."

  7. If he owns real estate, he's going to have a hard time selling it.

    Joe owning of record but Jill deeding out isn't going to work unless he puts his name change order of record.

    1. Scum like this dude never have assets.

      1. Probably on welfare and on disability because people hurt his feelings.

  8. Is "a transgender man" a female pretending to be male or a male pretending to be female?

    1. It is a female playing a man. Then they seek a feminine female as a girlfriend. Why bother to go to all that trouble? Just make your girlfriend sexually gratified without the expensive surgery and bad acting.

    2. G,
      You're asking a legit question (I myself don't know which one...although I've been assuming it's a person who now identifies as a man.) But you ask your question in the worst way, deliberately being provocative and accusing trans people of "pretending." You could have asked your question without being a fucking asshole. But, I guess a worthless piece of shit like you has got to be, well, a worthless piece of shit. Like with the scorpion of lore, "It's your nature."


      1. [Gratuitous insults intentionally omitted]

      2. accusing trans people of "pretending."

        I guess to determine whether the scare quotes are valid, we first need to define some vocabulary.

        What is a man?

        What is a woman?

        1. Respectfully, no, we don't need to define this (for the purpose I posted about). Your question is fascinating, and involves medicine, philosophy, psychology, social-anthropology, and a bunch of other "ologies" as well.

          But, I see two different situation that might be at play, in any given situation.
          (a) A person truly is identifying as the non-birth sex, and it is not only incredibly insulting to use 'pretending' in these situation, it's misleading. And gross. You can disagree with this person, and you can argue that he has not transitioned to she. But that is still a million miles from claiming that this person is 'pretending' in any way.
          (b) A person is reasonably suspected of claiming trans status, but might be doing this for real or perceived benefits. Getting to play on a woman's sports team, for example. Getting to dress and shower with female peers. Being able to apply for scholarships aimed only at women. Then, "Bob is pretending to be female." makes perfect sense.

          We all have our own "buttons" that can get pushed. For whatever reason (and I have no skin in this particular game, even including family and close friends in addition to myself), this kind of intentional asshole-ery just infuriates me. Geezer's username indicates that he or she is a senile old fart, and is no longer in full possession of his/her cognitive reasoning skills. So, I guess I could have been a bit kinder, in terms of my insulting language. Upon reflection, Geezer is to be pitied and not insulted. So, I do apologize for the actual words, while 100% standing by my scorn of the person and this person's bigotry and prejudices.

          1. "A person truly is identifying as the non-birth sex, and it is not only incredibly insulting to use 'pretending' in these situation, it's misleading."

            If you're concerned with "pretending" being insulting, why would "delusional" be less insulting?

            Anyway, no matter how you take it, there's an element of pretense involved, because the "trans woman" it not trying to make people around him think he's a dude who had surgery, he's trying to make them think he's a girl. He doesn't want to pass for a "trans woman", he wants to pass for a "woman".

            And unless he's REALLY delusional, he knows damned well he's a dude who had surgery, and knows a lot of the people around him are not interested in ignoring that distinction, and wants them misinformed about the situation.

          2. Start here:

            Does that word accurately describe the behavior of transgenders?
            My original sentence (Is "a transgender man" a female pretending to be male or a male pretending to be female?) was clear, concise, and accurate.

            What verb should I have used that would have made that sentence equally clear, concise, and accurate, but less "bigoted"?

            1. The "transgender man" is a woman trying to pass for a man, while the "transgender woman" is a man trying to pass for a woman. Remember, the people pushing this terminology are pretty determined to insist that the trans actually are what they want to be, so they'd never directly acknowledge the person's actual sex.

  9. The whole trans thing neither picks my pocket, nor breaks my leg. So I don't see any reason to not call and treat people like they want to be treated. Especially as it seems very important to them.

    The fantastical hypotheticals invented in this thread to buy trouble where there is none bemuse me. It's so much work being spent to be angry about something you'll probably rarely see or deal with.

    Sports, we can talk. But non the non-margins, y'all are being really melodramatic and sweaty to justify being assholes.

    1. I see plenty of reason to not call them what they want.

      * I have enough trouble associating names and faces. I am not going to throw arbitrary pronouns into the mix, and especially not made-up artificial strings of characters which may not even have an obvious pronunciation.

      * People use restrooms based on physical gender; the plumbing matters. Cross-dressers need to use the restroom based on their innate plumbing, not their mutable clothing.

      1. So like someone says 'call me Nick, I hate Nicholas' and you say 'sorry, I have trouble with names, Nicholas.'

        You're being an asshole.

        Restrooms have stalls. Being worried about someone else's plumbing in a non-sexual situation seems, again, buying trouble where none exists.

        1. Oh, like inventing pronouns is the same as using a contracted version of your name.

          1. Why do you care? Unless you can figure out some way to monetize being an asshole, like Jordan Peterson.

            1. I only care to the extent that I will be made to care.

              1. So, you're an asshole for free.

        2. "You're being an asshole."

          Some folks seem to believe that hurling insults is a substitute for rational discourse.

          1. So, you start off with a deliberately insulting remark about transgender people and then get all wound up because somebody points out that you're being an asshole. What do you expect people to do? Apologize for calling you an asshole? Ok, I apologize. I'm sorry that you're an asshole.

            1. Some folks seem to believe that hurling insults is a substitute for rational discourse.

            2. "So, you start off with a deliberately insulting remark about transgender people ..."

              Would you be kind enough to quote the words I used that were "a deliberately insulting remark about transgender people"?

              1. This has already been pointed out to you:

                "Is 'a transgender man' a female pretending to be male or a male pretending to be female?"

                1. Which verb would you have used to ask that question?

                  1. A transgender man identifies as a man. A transgender woman identifies as a woman. It's not a matter of pretending, whim, delusion, or mental illness

                    1. My question remains unanswered:
                      Which verb would you have used to ask question the question I asked?

                    2. I'm a genetic male who "identifies as a man."
                      Does that make me a "transgender man"?
                      Or must I be a genetic female to qualify?

                    3. "It's not a matter of pretending, whim, delusion, or mental illness"

                      Why exactly did you have to specify "identifies as"? Because a "transgender man" isn't a man. She just identifies as one.

                      Where "identifies as" is one or more of "pretending, whim, delusion, or mental illness".

                    4. Where "identifies as" is one or more of "pretending, whim, delusion, or mental illness".

                      And that's really the bottom line. The marketing phrase "identifies as" sweeps the core issue under the rug: reality is A but I say it's B. I either know it's actually A (pretending) or truly believe it's B (delusion at best).

                  2. Unfortunately, Reason does not allow me to edit or delete a comment.
                    Here is my corrected comment:

                    My question remains unanswered:
                    Which verb would you have used to ask the question I asked?

          2. No, I was making an analogy - taking behavior most would agree is that of an asshole and analogizing it.

            If you took it as name-calling, then I guess the analogy really worked for you!

    2. So I don't see any reason to not call and treat people like they want to be treated. Especially as it seems very important to them.

      It's very important to me that you address me as "The only truly wise one in the universe" and treat me like I'm always right. Thanks in advance.

      1. No it's not, is the thing.

        As I said, you're working hard on a hypothetical to rationalize being a dick in the real world.

        1. Big ugly brute with a beard goes in the little girls room, he gets an ass kicking. To deter. We are sick of you lawyers and your sicko tyrannies.

          1. Did you learn to stay out of "the little girls [sic] room?"

            Don't be such a big girl's blouse.

    3. And Winston could have avoided a lot of torture by saying O'Brien was holding up five fingers, too. It's a question of intellectual integrity here. "Trans women" aren't women. "Trans men" aren't men. In the same way anorexics aren't overweight, actually, and do we typically treat anorexia with bariatric surgery?

      1. contradicting your middle school biology is nothing like 1984.

        I get you have a huge problem with humility, and you believe the world must agree with what you think.

        But this is just you being an asshole because of that pridefullness. Because you could be wrong. At the very least, you can't know what's going on here. And it doesn't pick your pocket, nor break your leg.

        Invoking 1984 shows how far you need to go to make this something you should care enough to fight about.
        Calling someone you used to know as Nicholas Nikki now is not an authoritarian dystopia; the disproportionate level of fictional melodrama you need to employ shows how much you work are doing to rationalize making this matter to you, a bystander being asked to be courteous in a somewhat novel way.

        1. "contradicting your middle school biology is nothing like 1984."

          Yeah, pretend that only middle school biology thinks that sex is a biological fact rather than a whim, and anybody who disagrees with you must not have learned anything since middle school.

          But what's 1984 isn't Nicholas deciding he's Nikki now, and asking that people he meets pretend he's a girl. That's just sad, but it's not dystopian.

          What's 1984 is demanding he get his way about it. Demanding that people go along with the joke.

          1. You agree with the assertion that trans people are pretending. You have asserted that they are mentally ill, that they are delusional, and now, that they are whimsical. I'd be willing to accept without judgment a claim that you just don't understand. But it has been explained to you that whatever it is that causes people to be transgender it is not pretense, mental illness, delusion, or whimsy and I have enough faith in the intelligence of even the most mentally defective to believe that you do get that. That leaves as the only explanation, your only excuse, just plain, willful dumb-fuckery. Given your history, that's not surprising.

            1. And I've explained to you that the pretense isn't that they're "trans", it's that they're genuinely of the opposite sex.

              A person who has undergone 'gender reassignment' surgery is quite well aware that they aren't biologically the opposite sex. But they don't want to be known as a male who has been altered to look like a female, (Or the other way around.) they want to be known as an actual female.

              THAT is the pretense/fraud/delusion in question.

        2. "and you believe the world must agree with what you think."

          You realize that's exactly what trans advocates are doing, right? Gender is a mental state (what they think), not a physical one, and they insist that everybody agree with their personal mental state and act accordingly.

          I'm happy to call people their chosen names. But I base pronouns off of biological sex simply because that IS an objective truth. You can feel you're whatever gender you want to be based on something distinct from biological sex, but you can't force me to adopt your feelings as my own.

          1. Sure - but here's the difference - what someone want to get called is in all other instances someone's own domain.

            Whether they are right or wrong, and whether you are right or wrong, you're being the discourteous one here.

            1. Well, obviously what somebody wants is their own domain. What they "get", OTOH, is often somebody else's.

              1. If someone gets to request they not be called by a certain nickname you like, this seems about the same burden.

                Your identity is not caught up in what pronoun you call someone else. Theirs is.

                It's a pretty simple set of equities to balance, regardless of how sure you are you're right.

                Someone gives you a gift you don't want, do you say 'this is not what I wanted, but thanks anyway!' No, you do not - we don't do radical honesty anywhere else; insisting on it here doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

                1. "Your identity is not caught up in what pronoun you call someone else. Theirs is."

                  Bullshit. This all boils down to "Submit! It's not polite to insist that there are only four fingers!"

                  Your name is your own. Pronouns in English communicate facts about the person indicated, and nobody is obligated by courtesy to communicate facts they know to be untrue, to lie.

                  As Orwell pointed out in 1984, the goal of forcing people to tell lies is to break down their attachment to the truth. In 1984, the specific lie was how many fingers O'Brien was holding up, but it could have been anything.

                  Transgender is the left's chosen lie at this moment in history. That's why you're so adamant that people must submit.

      2. I want to live my life without legs. Amputate my healthy legs. I want to live life blind. Gouge out my eyes. No.

        1. "I want to live my life without legs. Amputate my healthy legs. I want to live life blind. Gouge out my eyes. No."

          Go for it. If you are expecting either action to singificantly change your future happiness, for better or worse, you are mistaken.

    4. Truth is important. Believing lies is harmful. It's not love or kindness to help people believe lies, that's the path of least resistance and is done only done for yourself not for them.

      1. Your conviction is no excuse to be a dick. You're not making a brave stand for the truth, you're not calling someone what they sincerely want to be called.

        Making yourself the grand arbiter of what someone else's name is? That's you inserting your worldview where you needn't.

        1. I don't care what someone's name is. I was only responding to your comment, "I don't see any reason to not call and treat people like they want to be treated," offering a reason why one might not participate in the trans lie wholesale, i.e. might not participate in pretending that a man is a woman or vice versa in some circumstances.

          1. You're not being injured. Courtesy is not an area of radical honesty.

            This reason does not hold water to me.

            1. Fine, then, YOU call guys girls if you want.

              Doesn't change the fact that the real dick move is demanding that people lie for you.

              1. Courtesy is not an area of radical honesty.

                This is not a controversial opinion.

                Pointing out how courtesy works in every other practice, from names to gifts to food, is not really being a dick.

  10. There are four lights and all the judges in the world will not make it five.

    Nature is nature and the reaction of a guy when faced with the fraud of a guy pretending to be a gal is what is -- the aggressor only has himself to blame.

    1. You are mixing up what you were taught with what nature is.

      Turns out things are more complicated than you learned in middle school.

      This is not something to throw a tantrum about.

      1. No, no it is not -- there are two sexes, two genders and all of the violence (to science, to language or to dissenters) will never change that.

        And considering that a tiny, tiny minority is trying to use force and violence to cow the entire world into submission, there is little question in my mind who is making the "dick move."

        1. There is no violence here; being an asshole means people will treat you like one.

          1. You realize that people are about done with pretending that "refusing to agree with liberals" is the definition of "asshole"?

            1. This is not agreeing with liberals; it's calling someone what they want to be called. That's all. It matters to them - it's their name and pronoun; that makes sense.
              And you're having to declare this 1984 to explain why it matters to you as much.

              1. It may well be their name, but you don't get your own pronouns, that's not how our language works.

                1. I don't see why proper nouns are a bigger deal than pronouns. Your passion for semantic integrity seems pretty finely tuned to just be a dick to these people.

          2. This MP!!!! could be forced to relinquish money through government force for expressing her opinion:

            1. You're venturing pretty far afield here to find legal consequences.

              rather underscores my point about how most of what you're arguing about is for people not to treat you like a dick when you act like a dick.

              1. There is no greater dick move than locking people in a cage and stealing their money!

                The fascism is strong with you

  11. Just think, keeping this sealed and no one would ever know they were transgender!!

    lmao get real what an absurd fantasy this is to believe it’s not the multitude of behaviorial and physical giveaways.

    I can’t wait for this absurd delusion to end

Please to post comments