Anonymous wrote:“ Since 1979, the Iranian government has implemented several policies designed to deal with the complex realities of sexual orientation and gender identity in Iran today. On their face, some of these policies may appear accommodating. For example, the state legally recognizes transgender Iranians - as long as they agree to undergo sex reassignment surgery. It also allows gays, transgender males, or men who have sex with men to apply for a "behavioral disorder" exemption from military service if they can establish that they are gay or transgender.
But while these policies may accommodate, or even benefit some, they aim ultimately to control and enforce conformity, Human Rights Watch said. At times they expose sexual minorities to further harassment, abuse, blackmail, extortion, and torture”
jsteele Site Admin
Joined: 11/12/2007 23:38
Messages: 51152
Offline
Anonymous wrote:
jsteele wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
jsteele wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
jsteele wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
jsteele wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
jsteele wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
jsteele wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
jsteele wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
jsteele wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
jsteele wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
jsteele wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
jsteele wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
jsteele wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
jsteele wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Hey Jeff, sorry to bother and delete this is it’s inappropriate or anything.
I was wondering whether you were serious when you expressed your belief that Iran is “more progressive than many Republicans leaders” regarding LBGTQ+ community?
Surely you don’t believe that ALL gay people are trans, right? So forcing them to get surgery and live as the opposite sex in order to love who they love is an even more extreme ‘treatment’ which causes many physical health problems than Conversion Therapy.
If I’m misreading you, my bad! But if I’m not, you might want to examine your knee-jerk reaction which led you to praise Iran of all places for their civil rights.
I didn't say that Iran is more progressive regarding the LBGTQ+ community, but regarding transgender people specifically. Obviously, Iran has very backward policies regarding gay people. But, on the specific issue of transgender individuals, Iranian leaders have been much more supportive than most people would realize. As the Wikipedia article to which I link says, "Surgery for intersex conditions have been practiced in Iran since the 1930s." In 1963, Ayatollah Khomeini supported such surgery. In 1987, Khomeini issued a fatwa and, as a result, "transgender women in Iran have been able to live as women until they can afford surgery, have surgical reassignment, have their birth certificates and all official documents issued to them in their new gender, and marry men". I don't think that it is too much of a stretch to say that the Ayatollah Khomeini was more tolerant of trans people than is the current governor of Florida.
NP. I don’t know, Jeff. If the Ayatollah is more tolerant of trans people because he executes gay people, that seems like at least leaving off major facts when comparing the Ayatollah to the current governor of Florida.
I guess if you believe that you cannot discuss trans issues in isolation you are correct. But the entire discussion in which I brought this up was about trans people, not gay individuals. Generally when discussing one issue it is not required to also discuss additional issues. Should we also evaluate their attitudes towards taxation and teaching about Black history in schools?
Come on, Jeff.
In Iran, there is government support for limited trans rights precisely because of extreme homophobia. Transition is offered as an option to men — women being largely irrelevant — as an alternative to execution. That is a foundational fact that has to be mentioned in literally any favorable (!) discussion of the Ayatollah’s policy on transgender people. It’s genuinely shocking to me that you think it’s an irrelevant fact not worth mentioning, or at least not any different than any other political stance. I honestly do not understand where you are coming from.
You are clearly unfamiliar with the history of Iran's tolerance of transgender individuals. Those policies were developed completely independently of policies regarding homosexuals. You are arguing for the existence of a linkage that has no basis in history. As the expression goes, two things can be true. The Ayatollah Khomeini can be more progressive regarding trans rights than the current governor of Florida and Iran can be absolutely terrible when it comes to gay rights. I've been discussing the first of these. The second had not really been relevant in either of the discussions in which I've been involved.
That article does not make the point you are claiming that it is making.
But it does. “ Becoming a new version of yourself that is loved by the person and is considered a rebirth, liberation from the physical prison that does not belong to him, access to basic rights, the possibility of changing the name, obtaining a birth certificate and a driving license certificate based on the new gender, choosing clothes and finally eliminating the charge of homosexuality and the risk of execution (punishment for sodomy) is only part of the benefits of accompanying religious rule for transgender people. In Iran, the Imam Committee provides interest-free loans to some people eligible for gender reassignment surgery, which is in line with the recommendations of the WHO”.
Okay then. I must be really slow. Explain to me using small words what point you are making and how this article supports it. Because I don't see the connection at all.
The way to get out of being executed for being gay is to get SRS (sexual reassignment surgery). That’s all.
That's true today. It's not why the transgender policies were developed and it is not why those policies exist now. It has nothing to do with why trans people choose to have such surgery. This is a terrible aspect of Irans anti-gay policies. But, it is not part of their trans policies.
I know about Maryam Khatoon Molkara and how she showed her breasts to the son of the Ayatollah and he brought Maryam to see his dad and they declared a fatwa because she was so impressive and womanly. And now Sex corrective surgery for the purpose of bringing out one’s true gender is not only unproblematic for Islam, but wajib (mandatory).
So, if you’re a man in love with another man, you must get SRS. Homophobia is the reason Iran is “progressive” wrt trans rights.
Neither of these sentences is true. The Wikipedia article about Transgender rights and Iran has a section about this which I will quote in its entirety:
Forced surgery for homosexual people
It has been widely reported that homosexual individuals are pressured to undergo medical reassignment as part of the Iranian state's oppression of homosexuality.[9] A 2016 study analyzes European and American literature about the topic as characterizing legalized transgender surgery at least partly motivated by a desire to enforce a heteronormative binary conception of gender, including 'forced' surgery for some gay people, and critiques that view as an oversimplification.[8]: 250 Two studies, however, have contested the belief that cisgender homosexuals have actually undergone sex change due to social pressure.[40][41]
Obviously Wikipedia is not necessarily the most authoritative source, but the Pinknews article linked above relied in the Sun tabloid so that, if anything, is worse.
To the extent that homosexuals are forced to transition, if they are at all, that is part of Iran's abhorrent policies towards gay people. The policies regarding transgender people were not developed as a solution to homosexuality, but rather for entirely different reasons.
The Iranian gender reassignment surgeon in the article you linked does not seem to agree with your analysis.
Here is the paragraph in question:
"In Iran, homosexuality is treated as a crime carrying the death penalty," he says. "In Europe and north America, it is accepted. Transsexuals aren't homosexuals. Unlike homosexuals, they suffer from a separation of body and soul where they believe their own body doesn't belong to them. But in Europe they can have a free life. They aren't under the same pressure to change their sex. In Iran, transsexuals suffer from a lack of awareness, within their own family and in wider society. That increases the psychological pressure and contributes to the higher number of operations here."
This is somewhat confusing and unclear. I believe what he is saying that that transgender people are pressured to get sex reassignment surgery whereas in other countries many transgender individuals don't medically transition. I, of course, don't agree with such pressure. Nobody should be forced to have an unwanted operation.
The surgeon — one of Iran’s preeminent gender reassignment surgeons — started that entire discussion with a discussion of Iran’s death penalty for homosexuals. I simply do not understand how you can read that quote and have your takeaway remain that Iran’s approach to transgender rights is wholly independent of its extreme homophobia. It genuinely confounds me. I suspect if you asked the surgeon himself whether the two are inextricably linked, he would say that of course they are. Why else would he bring the death penalty up in that context? Why do you think he mentioned it at all? If they are unrelated, there would be no need to say anything about the death penalty.
Really this is a very simple question. Does Iran support trans rights only because of homophobia? There is clear evidence that is not the case. Historically there is no connection and no evidence that trans rights exist because of homophobia today.
Iran has deplorable policies regarding gay people. If one policy is forced sex changes, that is of course unpardonable. But you seem to believe that Iran's horrendous policies towards homosexuals discredits the government's support for trans rights. We will have to agree to disagree about this.
do you honestly not see the connection between homophobia and pushing SRS?
Yes, of course I see that connection. But do you honestly not see that support for SRS can exist without homophobia?
Are you one of those people who think transgenderism is fake and that trans people are simply mentally ill? If that’s the case, then I can understand why you think every trans person in Iran is actually a gay person who was forced to transition.
There are trans Iranians who are getting the support they desire and it has nothing to do with gay people. Is it impossible for you to accept that?
I am not the PP but I am the one you agreed to disagree with earlier, who referenced Dr. Mir-Jalali and his explicit statements connecting support for SRS surgery in Iran with homophobia. I have not posted since then.
My answers to your questions:
But do you honestly not see that support for SRS can exist without homophobia?
I believe that support for SRS can exist without homophobia in places where homosexuality is accepted. In other words, if you were making the point that homophobia can exist entirely independently of support for SRS in a place like the US or Europe, I would agree with you.
I do not believe that support for SRS can exist without homophobia in a place where homophobia means literal execution. In that environment, the stakes are entirely too high to separate the two.
Are you one of those people who think transgenderism is fake and that trans people are simply mentally ill?
No, of course not. In fact, I am firmly against the care bans going into place in some states, though I also believe that the science behind much medicalized transgender care for both youths and adults is appallingly weak, and that much more rigorous research and data is needed. But I think the care bans are cruel.
Fundamentally, I do not believe that you can separate homophobia for support for SRS in a society where gay men know they will be executed if they come out of the closet. I believe that separation to be impossible, and it certainly seems to be confirmed by the direct quotes from Dr. Mir-Jalali.
In the end, I think if one finds oneself arguing that the Ayatollah has the better moral position on whatever position you are taking, perhaps it is time to examine the position more closely.
I believe that your position is that the negative aspects of Iran's trans policies vis-a-vis gay people negates any benefits of those policies with regard to trans people. I don't believe that kind of calculus is appropriate when you are dealing with human beings. Rather, I think you can recognize both the positive and negative ramifications of policies and their impact on people.
You are also misstating what Dr. Mir-Jalali said in the article. He did not say that Iran's trans policies are a result of the polices regarding homosexuals. Rather, the Guardian paraphrases him as saying that the anti-gay policies account for the high number of operations. I would like to see the question that was posed to the Doctor and his actual answer rather than this paraphrase given that what he is actually quoted as saying is somewhat different. But, let's take the paraphrase a face value and accept that some portion of sex change operations are due to gay people reacting to legal and societal pressure. That still means that the remainder of operations are for actual trans people who truly want the surgery. Why are you ignoring those individuals?
Regarding your last point about arguing that the Ayatollah has a better moral position, I'll just say that I have not discussed the morality of the Ayatollah so that is simply a red herring. My argument is that Ayatollah Khomeini, who by the way has been dead for some time, was more tolerant of transgender rights than is the current governor of Florida. You may say that it comes off poorly for me to give Khomeini any benefit of the doubt, but really, what does it say about DeSantis?
Mussolini made the trains run on time, tis true!
Jeff give up. Trying to hold up IRAN as some kind of gotcha against Desantis is convincing absolutely nobody and making you look like an idiot.
I accept your concession to have lost this debate and forced to resort to ad hominem name calling. I didn't realize that you are apparently a DeSantis fan. Had I known, I would not have wasted so much time.
yes, the fact that I think it’s incorrect and stupid to use Iran as a gotcha against DeSantis proves I am a DeSantis fan. Meanwhile you seem to be taking the position that the fact that a single trans person is happy with their Iranian state-provided SRS proves that Iran is better than Florida for trans people.
Essentially yes, but the number is much greater than one. You, on the other hand, will tell those people that any benefit they received doesn't matter.
I am 100% certain every Iranian sexual minority offered asylum in Florida would take it. You are literally making the “trains ran on time” argument.
Probably true with regard to sexual minorities but probably not true for Iranian trans individuals who have not medically transitioned. Unless Florida is just used as a stepping stone to another state.
Given the current level of discourse you are providing, this discussion is not really worth my efforts anymore.
Anonymous wrote:Hey Jeff, sorry to bother and delete this is it’s inappropriate or anything.
I was wondering whether you were serious when you expressed your belief that Iran is “more progressive than many Republicans leaders” regarding LBGTQ+ community?
Surely you don’t believe that ALL gay people are trans, right? So forcing them to get surgery and live as the opposite sex in order to love who they love is an even more extreme ‘treatment’ which causes many physical health problems than Conversion Therapy.
If I’m misreading you, my bad! But if I’m not, you might want to examine your knee-jerk reaction which led you to praise Iran of all places for their civil rights.
I didn't say that Iran is more progressive regarding the LBGTQ+ community, but regarding transgender people specifically. Obviously, Iran has very backward policies regarding gay people. But, on the specific issue of transgender individuals, Iranian leaders have been much more supportive than most people would realize. As the Wikipedia article to which I link says, "Surgery for intersex conditions have been practiced in Iran since the 1930s." In 1963, Ayatollah Khomeini supported such surgery. In 1987, Khomeini issued a fatwa and, as a result, "transgender women in Iran have been able to live as women until they can afford surgery, have surgical reassignment, have their birth certificates and all official documents issued to them in their new gender, and marry men". I don't think that it is too much of a stretch to say that the Ayatollah Khomeini was more tolerant of trans people than is the current governor of Florida.
NP. I don’t know, Jeff. If the Ayatollah is more tolerant of trans people because he executes gay people, that seems like at least leaving off major facts when comparing the Ayatollah to the current governor of Florida.
I guess if you believe that you cannot discuss trans issues in isolation you are correct. But the entire discussion in which I brought this up was about trans people, not gay individuals. Generally when discussing one issue it is not required to also discuss additional issues. Should we also evaluate their attitudes towards taxation and teaching about Black history in schools?
Come on, Jeff.
In Iran, there is government support for limited trans rights precisely because of extreme homophobia. Transition is offered as an option to men — women being largely irrelevant — as an alternative to execution. That is a foundational fact that has to be mentioned in literally any favorable (!) discussion of the Ayatollah’s policy on transgender people. It’s genuinely shocking to me that you think it’s an irrelevant fact not worth mentioning, or at least not any different than any other political stance. I honestly do not understand where you are coming from.
You are clearly unfamiliar with the history of Iran's tolerance of transgender individuals. Those policies were developed completely independently of policies regarding homosexuals. You are arguing for the existence of a linkage that has no basis in history. As the expression goes, two things can be true. The Ayatollah Khomeini can be more progressive regarding trans rights than the current governor of Florida and Iran can be absolutely terrible when it comes to gay rights. I've been discussing the first of these. The second had not really been relevant in either of the discussions in which I've been involved.
That article does not make the point you are claiming that it is making.
But it does. “ Becoming a new version of yourself that is loved by the person and is considered a rebirth, liberation from the physical prison that does not belong to him, access to basic rights, the possibility of changing the name, obtaining a birth certificate and a driving license certificate based on the new gender, choosing clothes and finally eliminating the charge of homosexuality and the risk of execution (punishment for sodomy) is only part of the benefits of accompanying religious rule for transgender people. In Iran, the Imam Committee provides interest-free loans to some people eligible for gender reassignment surgery, which is in line with the recommendations of the WHO”.
Okay then. I must be really slow. Explain to me using small words what point you are making and how this article supports it. Because I don't see the connection at all.
The way to get out of being executed for being gay is to get SRS (sexual reassignment surgery). That’s all.
That's true today. It's not why the transgender policies were developed and it is not why those policies exist now. It has nothing to do with why trans people choose to have such surgery. This is a terrible aspect of Irans anti-gay policies. But, it is not part of their trans policies.
I know about Maryam Khatoon Molkara and how she showed her breasts to the son of the Ayatollah and he brought Maryam to see his dad and they declared a fatwa because she was so impressive and womanly. And now Sex corrective surgery for the purpose of bringing out one’s true gender is not only unproblematic for Islam, but wajib (mandatory).
So, if you’re a man in love with another man, you must get SRS. Homophobia is the reason Iran is “progressive” wrt trans rights.
Neither of these sentences is true. The Wikipedia article about Transgender rights and Iran has a section about this which I will quote in its entirety:
Forced surgery for homosexual people
It has been widely reported that homosexual individuals are pressured to undergo medical reassignment as part of the Iranian state's oppression of homosexuality.[9] A 2016 study analyzes European and American literature about the topic as characterizing legalized transgender surgery at least partly motivated by a desire to enforce a heteronormative binary conception of gender, including 'forced' surgery for some gay people, and critiques that view as an oversimplification.[8]: 250 Two studies, however, have contested the belief that cisgender homosexuals have actually undergone sex change due to social pressure.[40][41]
Obviously Wikipedia is not necessarily the most authoritative source, but the Pinknews article linked above relied in the Sun tabloid so that, if anything, is worse.
To the extent that homosexuals are forced to transition, if they are at all, that is part of Iran's abhorrent policies towards gay people. The policies regarding transgender people were not developed as a solution to homosexuality, but rather for entirely different reasons.
The Iranian gender reassignment surgeon in the article you linked does not seem to agree with your analysis.
Here is the paragraph in question:
"In Iran, homosexuality is treated as a crime carrying the death penalty," he says. "In Europe and north America, it is accepted. Transsexuals aren't homosexuals. Unlike homosexuals, they suffer from a separation of body and soul where they believe their own body doesn't belong to them. But in Europe they can have a free life. They aren't under the same pressure to change their sex. In Iran, transsexuals suffer from a lack of awareness, within their own family and in wider society. That increases the psychological pressure and contributes to the higher number of operations here."
This is somewhat confusing and unclear. I believe what he is saying that that transgender people are pressured to get sex reassignment surgery whereas in other countries many transgender individuals don't medically transition. I, of course, don't agree with such pressure. Nobody should be forced to have an unwanted operation.
The surgeon — one of Iran’s preeminent gender reassignment surgeons — started that entire discussion with a discussion of Iran’s death penalty for homosexuals. I simply do not understand how you can read that quote and have your takeaway remain that Iran’s approach to transgender rights is wholly independent of its extreme homophobia. It genuinely confounds me. I suspect if you asked the surgeon himself whether the two are inextricably linked, he would say that of course they are. Why else would he bring the death penalty up in that context? Why do you think he mentioned it at all? If they are unrelated, there would be no need to say anything about the death penalty.
Really this is a very simple question. Does Iran support trans rights only because of homophobia? There is clear evidence that is not the case. Historically there is no connection and no evidence that trans rights exist because of homophobia today.
Iran has deplorable policies regarding gay people. If one policy is forced sex changes, that is of course unpardonable. But you seem to believe that Iran's horrendous policies towards homosexuals discredits the government's support for trans rights. We will have to agree to disagree about this.
do you honestly not see the connection between homophobia and pushing SRS?
Yes, of course I see that connection. But do you honestly not see that support for SRS can exist without homophobia?
Are you one of those people who think transgenderism is fake and that trans people are simply mentally ill? If that’s the case, then I can understand why you think every trans person in Iran is actually a gay person who was forced to transition.
There are trans Iranians who are getting the support they desire and it has nothing to do with gay people. Is it impossible for you to accept that?
I am not the PP but I am the one you agreed to disagree with earlier, who referenced Dr. Mir-Jalali and his explicit statements connecting support for SRS surgery in Iran with homophobia. I have not posted since then.
My answers to your questions:
But do you honestly not see that support for SRS can exist without homophobia?
I believe that support for SRS can exist without homophobia in places where homosexuality is accepted. In other words, if you were making the point that homophobia can exist entirely independently of support for SRS in a place like the US or Europe, I would agree with you.
I do not believe that support for SRS can exist without homophobia in a place where homophobia means literal execution. In that environment, the stakes are entirely too high to separate the two.
Are you one of those people who think transgenderism is fake and that trans people are simply mentally ill?
No, of course not. In fact, I am firmly against the care bans going into place in some states, though I also believe that the science behind much medicalized transgender care for both youths and adults is appallingly weak, and that much more rigorous research and data is needed. But I think the care bans are cruel.
Fundamentally, I do not believe that you can separate homophobia for support for SRS in a society where gay men know they will be executed if they come out of the closet. I believe that separation to be impossible, and it certainly seems to be confirmed by the direct quotes from Dr. Mir-Jalali.
In the end, I think if one finds oneself arguing that the Ayatollah has the better moral position on whatever position you are taking, perhaps it is time to examine the position more closely.
I believe that your position is that the negative aspects of Iran's trans policies vis-a-vis gay people negates any benefits of those policies with regard to trans people. I don't believe that kind of calculus is appropriate when you are dealing with human beings. Rather, I think you can recognize both the positive and negative ramifications of policies and their impact on people.
You are also misstating what Dr. Mir-Jalali said in the article. He did not say that Iran's trans policies are a result of the polices regarding homosexuals. Rather, the Guardian paraphrases him as saying that the anti-gay policies account for the high number of operations. I would like to see the question that was posed to the Doctor and his actual answer rather than this paraphrase given that what he is actually quoted as saying is somewhat different. But, let's take the paraphrase a face value and accept that some portion of sex change operations are due to gay people reacting to legal and societal pressure. That still means that the remainder of operations are for actual trans people who truly want the surgery. Why are you ignoring those individuals?
Regarding your last point about arguing that the Ayatollah has a better moral position, I'll just say that I have not discussed the morality of the Ayatollah so that is simply a red herring. My argument is that Ayatollah Khomeini, who by the way has been dead for some time, was more tolerant of transgender rights than is the current governor of Florida. You may say that it comes off poorly for me to give Khomeini any benefit of the doubt, but really, what does it say about DeSantis?
I’m the PP you responded to here (and I have not posted since that post). I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on this, as we initially concluded.
Where I fall at the end: I think that Iran’s extreme homophobia (up to and including execution) cannot be separated from its positions on SRS. Therefore the Ayatollah should not be referred to positively in a comparison to DeSantis because the extreme Iranian homophobia is inextricably tied to its transgender policies. (I despise DeSantis, for the record.)
I believe your position is that while Iran has terrible homophobia, that exists largely independently of Iran’s transgender policies and so it is appropriate to refer to the Ayatollah positively in comparison to DeSantis.
I don’t think further discussion will be fruitful.
Anonymous wrote:Hey Jeff, sorry to bother and delete this is it’s inappropriate or anything.
I was wondering whether you were serious when you expressed your belief that Iran is “more progressive than many Republicans leaders” regarding LBGTQ+ community?
Surely you don’t believe that ALL gay people are trans, right? So forcing them to get surgery and live as the opposite sex in order to love who they love is an even more extreme ‘treatment’ which causes many physical health problems than Conversion Therapy.
If I’m misreading you, my bad! But if I’m not, you might want to examine your knee-jerk reaction which led you to praise Iran of all places for their civil rights.
I didn't say that Iran is more progressive regarding the LBGTQ+ community, but regarding transgender people specifically. Obviously, Iran has very backward policies regarding gay people. But, on the specific issue of transgender individuals, Iranian leaders have been much more supportive than most people would realize. As the Wikipedia article to which I link says, "Surgery for intersex conditions have been practiced in Iran since the 1930s." In 1963, Ayatollah Khomeini supported such surgery. In 1987, Khomeini issued a fatwa and, as a result, "transgender women in Iran have been able to live as women until they can afford surgery, have surgical reassignment, have their birth certificates and all official documents issued to them in their new gender, and marry men". I don't think that it is too much of a stretch to say that the Ayatollah Khomeini was more tolerant of trans people than is the current governor of Florida.
NP. I don’t know, Jeff. If the Ayatollah is more tolerant of trans people because he executes gay people, that seems like at least leaving off major facts when comparing the Ayatollah to the current governor of Florida.
I guess if you believe that you cannot discuss trans issues in isolation you are correct. But the entire discussion in which I brought this up was about trans people, not gay individuals. Generally when discussing one issue it is not required to also discuss additional issues. Should we also evaluate their attitudes towards taxation and teaching about Black history in schools?
Come on, Jeff.
In Iran, there is government support for limited trans rights precisely because of extreme homophobia. Transition is offered as an option to men — women being largely irrelevant — as an alternative to execution. That is a foundational fact that has to be mentioned in literally any favorable (!) discussion of the Ayatollah’s policy on transgender people. It’s genuinely shocking to me that you think it’s an irrelevant fact not worth mentioning, or at least not any different than any other political stance. I honestly do not understand where you are coming from.
You are clearly unfamiliar with the history of Iran's tolerance of transgender individuals. Those policies were developed completely independently of policies regarding homosexuals. You are arguing for the existence of a linkage that has no basis in history. As the expression goes, two things can be true. The Ayatollah Khomeini can be more progressive regarding trans rights than the current governor of Florida and Iran can be absolutely terrible when it comes to gay rights. I've been discussing the first of these. The second had not really been relevant in either of the discussions in which I've been involved.
That article does not make the point you are claiming that it is making.
But it does. “ Becoming a new version of yourself that is loved by the person and is considered a rebirth, liberation from the physical prison that does not belong to him, access to basic rights, the possibility of changing the name, obtaining a birth certificate and a driving license certificate based on the new gender, choosing clothes and finally eliminating the charge of homosexuality and the risk of execution (punishment for sodomy) is only part of the benefits of accompanying religious rule for transgender people. In Iran, the Imam Committee provides interest-free loans to some people eligible for gender reassignment surgery, which is in line with the recommendations of the WHO”.
Okay then. I must be really slow. Explain to me using small words what point you are making and how this article supports it. Because I don't see the connection at all.
The way to get out of being executed for being gay is to get SRS (sexual reassignment surgery). That’s all.
That's true today. It's not why the transgender policies were developed and it is not why those policies exist now. It has nothing to do with why trans people choose to have such surgery. This is a terrible aspect of Irans anti-gay policies. But, it is not part of their trans policies.
I know about Maryam Khatoon Molkara and how she showed her breasts to the son of the Ayatollah and he brought Maryam to see his dad and they declared a fatwa because she was so impressive and womanly. And now Sex corrective surgery for the purpose of bringing out one’s true gender is not only unproblematic for Islam, but wajib (mandatory).
So, if you’re a man in love with another man, you must get SRS. Homophobia is the reason Iran is “progressive” wrt trans rights.
Neither of these sentences is true. The Wikipedia article about Transgender rights and Iran has a section about this which I will quote in its entirety:
Forced surgery for homosexual people
It has been widely reported that homosexual individuals are pressured to undergo medical reassignment as part of the Iranian state's oppression of homosexuality.[9] A 2016 study analyzes European and American literature about the topic as characterizing legalized transgender surgery at least partly motivated by a desire to enforce a heteronormative binary conception of gender, including 'forced' surgery for some gay people, and critiques that view as an oversimplification.[8]: 250 Two studies, however, have contested the belief that cisgender homosexuals have actually undergone sex change due to social pressure.[40][41]
Obviously Wikipedia is not necessarily the most authoritative source, but the Pinknews article linked above relied in the Sun tabloid so that, if anything, is worse.
To the extent that homosexuals are forced to transition, if they are at all, that is part of Iran's abhorrent policies towards gay people. The policies regarding transgender people were not developed as a solution to homosexuality, but rather for entirely different reasons.
The Iranian gender reassignment surgeon in the article you linked does not seem to agree with your analysis.
Here is the paragraph in question:
"In Iran, homosexuality is treated as a crime carrying the death penalty," he says. "In Europe and north America, it is accepted. Transsexuals aren't homosexuals. Unlike homosexuals, they suffer from a separation of body and soul where they believe their own body doesn't belong to them. But in Europe they can have a free life. They aren't under the same pressure to change their sex. In Iran, transsexuals suffer from a lack of awareness, within their own family and in wider society. That increases the psychological pressure and contributes to the higher number of operations here."
This is somewhat confusing and unclear. I believe what he is saying that that transgender people are pressured to get sex reassignment surgery whereas in other countries many transgender individuals don't medically transition. I, of course, don't agree with such pressure. Nobody should be forced to have an unwanted operation.
The surgeon — one of Iran’s preeminent gender reassignment surgeons — started that entire discussion with a discussion of Iran’s death penalty for homosexuals. I simply do not understand how you can read that quote and have your takeaway remain that Iran’s approach to transgender rights is wholly independent of its extreme homophobia. It genuinely confounds me. I suspect if you asked the surgeon himself whether the two are inextricably linked, he would say that of course they are. Why else would he bring the death penalty up in that context? Why do you think he mentioned it at all? If they are unrelated, there would be no need to say anything about the death penalty.
Really this is a very simple question. Does Iran support trans rights only because of homophobia? There is clear evidence that is not the case. Historically there is no connection and no evidence that trans rights exist because of homophobia today.
Iran has deplorable policies regarding gay people. If one policy is forced sex changes, that is of course unpardonable. But you seem to believe that Iran's horrendous policies towards homosexuals discredits the government's support for trans rights. We will have to agree to disagree about this.
do you honestly not see the connection between homophobia and pushing SRS?
Yes, of course I see that connection. But do you honestly not see that support for SRS can exist without homophobia?
Are you one of those people who think transgenderism is fake and that trans people are simply mentally ill? If that’s the case, then I can understand why you think every trans person in Iran is actually a gay person who was forced to transition.
There are trans Iranians who are getting the support they desire and it has nothing to do with gay people. Is it impossible for you to accept that?
I am not the PP but I am the one you agreed to disagree with earlier, who referenced Dr. Mir-Jalali and his explicit statements connecting support for SRS surgery in Iran with homophobia. I have not posted since then.
My answers to your questions:
But do you honestly not see that support for SRS can exist without homophobia?
I believe that support for SRS can exist without homophobia in places where homosexuality is accepted. In other words, if you were making the point that homophobia can exist entirely independently of support for SRS in a place like the US or Europe, I would agree with you.
I do not believe that support for SRS can exist without homophobia in a place where homophobia means literal execution. In that environment, the stakes are entirely too high to separate the two.
Are you one of those people who think transgenderism is fake and that trans people are simply mentally ill?
No, of course not. In fact, I am firmly against the care bans going into place in some states, though I also believe that the science behind much medicalized transgender care for both youths and adults is appallingly weak, and that much more rigorous research and data is needed. But I think the care bans are cruel.
Fundamentally, I do not believe that you can separate homophobia for support for SRS in a society where gay men know they will be executed if they come out of the closet. I believe that separation to be impossible, and it certainly seems to be confirmed by the direct quotes from Dr. Mir-Jalali.
In the end, I think if one finds oneself arguing that the Ayatollah has the better moral position on whatever position you are taking, perhaps it is time to examine the position more closely.
I believe that your position is that the negative aspects of Iran's trans policies vis-a-vis gay people negates any benefits of those policies with regard to trans people. I don't believe that kind of calculus is appropriate when you are dealing with human beings. Rather, I think you can recognize both the positive and negative ramifications of policies and their impact on people.
You are also misstating what Dr. Mir-Jalali said in the article. He did not say that Iran's trans policies are a result of the polices regarding homosexuals. Rather, the Guardian paraphrases him as saying that the anti-gay policies account for the high number of operations. I would like to see the question that was posed to the Doctor and his actual answer rather than this paraphrase given that what he is actually quoted as saying is somewhat different. But, let's take the paraphrase a face value and accept that some portion of sex change operations are due to gay people reacting to legal and societal pressure. That still means that the remainder of operations are for actual trans people who truly want the surgery. Why are you ignoring those individuals?
Regarding your last point about arguing that the Ayatollah has a better moral position, I'll just say that I have not discussed the morality of the Ayatollah so that is simply a red herring. My argument is that Ayatollah Khomeini, who by the way has been dead for some time, was more tolerant of transgender rights than is the current governor of Florida. You may say that it comes off poorly for me to give Khomeini any benefit of the doubt, but really, what does it say about DeSantis?
Mussolini made the trains run on time, tis true!
Jeff give up. Trying to hold up IRAN as some kind of gotcha against Desantis is convincing absolutely nobody and making you look like an idiot.
I accept your concession to have lost this debate and forced to resort to ad hominem name calling. I didn't realize that you are apparently a DeSantis fan. Had I known, I would not have wasted so much time.
yes, the fact that I think it’s incorrect and stupid to use Iran as a gotcha against DeSantis proves I am a DeSantis fan. Meanwhile you seem to be taking the position that the fact that a single trans person is happy with their Iranian state-provided SRS proves that Iran is better than Florida for trans people.
Essentially yes, but the number is much greater than one. You, on the other hand, will tell those people that any benefit they received doesn't matter.
I am 100% certain every Iranian sexual minority offered asylum in Florida would take it. You are literally making the “trains ran on time” argument.
Probably true with regard to sexual minorities but probably not true for Iranian trans individuals who have not medically transitioned. Unless Florida is just used as a stepping stone to another state.
Given the current level of discourse you are providing, this discussion is not really worth my efforts anymore.
are you joking? SRS is perfectly legal for trans adults in Florida. The fact that you think a trans person would prefer Iran over Florida is just so out of touch with reality.
Forum Index
»
Website Feedback
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}