After Andrea Jones had gender reassignment surgery and was recognized as female by the Social Security office, she went into a Tennessee DMV office to change the gender on her driver’s license—but they denied her request.
So she walked out into the parking lot, removed her shirt and the police arrested her for indecent exposure, though it’s completely legal for men to go around shirtless.
Even the police report refers to Jones as a man, something she has responded to thusly: “If I was a male, I had the right to, when I stepped out the door, take off my shirt. It’s not right for the state to ask me to be both male and female. A choice needs to be made. They cannot hold me to both standards.”
She’s right. In the meanwhile she’s a female to the Social Security Administration, a male to the Department of Motor Vehicles and somewhere in between to the police.
Concur with Hats, I have to say that's probably one of the best ways I've heard of that kind of gak being handled. The hell is up with the DMV? I get it's not exactly the elite admin types staffing those offices but still...
I want to be a fly on the wall in the prosecutor's office when the cops explain this one.
"So you arrested this individual for indecent exposure..."
*cops nod*
"...but the driver's license lists her gender as male... so we technically can't charge her..."
*confused look from cops*
"...feth someone get me some coffee this is gonna be a long day"
On a side note, is it just me or are indecent exposure laws for women going topless kinda BS in general? It's a boob. Or a pair of them. Do we really have to freak out if a chick decides to play skins for a shirts and skins basketball game?
She entered an Alford plea to the charge of resisting arrest. An "Alford Plea" is a type of plea made when an accused purports their innocence although they chose to enter a guilty plea. If a strong factual basis exists supporting an Alford plea, the court will accept such plea. No trial occurs with this type of plea.
The State dropped the charge for indecent exposure. It's my opinion that had they not dropped that particular charge and Andrea had entered a "Not Guilty" plea, the State would not have been able to prove their case and the subsequent resisting arrest. In Tennessee, it is legal to resist an unlawful arrest. Most likely, since the State knew they could not prove the indecent exposure, they knew the resisting arrest charge would not have stood.
She had poor public counsel which she met, in person, for the first time, during the proceedings. He did not want to fight and the prosecutor had scared her to death. She had already served 23 days in jail and was released after her estranged father posted a $1000 cash bond. In addition, she was sentenced to two years of supervised probation plus, if I remember correctly, $2000 in court cost and fines. In addition, she would have to pay monthly probation supervision fees.
There were honest-to-God repeat DUI offenders and child pornography cases that preceded her that received lesser
Good on her. Showing up the stupidity of the DMV and the local police (Well, possibly, they may have arrested her and then said, I see what you are doing, you see why we arrested you, and I see what will happen if we try and push this to court. Good luck and please don't do it again!).
What I want to know is who called the police? Did they happen to be driving past or did the DMV call them?
On a side note, is it just me or are indecent exposure laws for women going topless kinda BS in general? It's a boob. Or a pair of them. Do we really have to freak out if a chick decides to play skins for a shirts and skins basketball game?
Ye, I agree. I do find the law odd. Basicly because women have a little more fat in one area than menSome men alot of men in many places it is counted as indecent exposure... I personaly think there is a time and a place for things and don't want to be seeing men or women wandering round a shop topless, but also don't think there should be any differentiation in areas where it is ok. In the park on a sunny saterday afternoon for example. I would never do it (and I don't think anyone wants to see my pasty white skin), but we should not be having this kind of gender split in law (The law is much the same in the UK).
Sigvatr wrote: Born a man, you are a man. Period. Slapping some boobs on won't change that.
Congratulations, you win the "most ignorant and offensive comment of the day" award. Possibly for the entire week even.
I would agree, but I saw a guy congratulate the owners of a restaurant for taking all the wait staffs tips for themselves, and that it would encourage the waiters to work harder, and then thanked god for all his glory.
I decided to look it up again to get the exact quote: I saw the show and I like the way the do not give the tips to the help, because that will help them to pull themselves up by their bootstraps!! With God's love anything is possible!
Sigvatr wrote:Born a man, you are a man. Period. Slapping some boobs on won't change that.
What about "slapping a vagina on", would that change it? Followed by massive doses of hormone therapy? How about a personal sense of self-identification for the trifecta?
On a side note, is it just me or are indecent exposure laws for women going topless kinda BS in general? It's a boob. Or a pair of them. Do we really have to freak out if a chick decides to play skins for a shirts and skins basketball game?
Yet another example of our extreme puritanical roots as a country... There have been articles recently about women attempting to breast feed their infants in a store (there have been recent articles that happened in Target, as well as the on base Commissary in Hawaii).
I will never understand the kinds of idiots who scream bloody murder at a parent actually trying to take care of their children. And no, a breastfeeding mother should not be forced to use a covering of some type, as KM pointed out, its a boob.... big fething deal.
Sigvatr wrote: Born a man, you are a man. Period. Slapping some boobs on won't change that.
Gotta say I’m sort of in agreement with this.
If living your life dressing an behaving as if you are a member of the opposite sex makes you happy then by all means go for it, it’s your life and you should be able to live it as you see fit. But no matter how much cosmetic surgery you may have or hormone injections you may take, your new gender is still an artificial construct.
This persons natural biological state is that of a man. To claim otherwise is ridiculous.
I really don't get the callousness of some of the comments in here.
I think you could find lots of grey areas when trying to define gender, i'm not sure what the problem is with defining them as female. It's not a choice that people wake up with one day, and go in for surgery the next.
Medium of Death wrote: I really don't get the callousness of some of the comments in here.
I think you could find lots of grey areas when trying to define gender, i'm not sure what the problem is with defining them as female. It's not a choice that people wake up with one day, and go in for surgery the next.
Why do you care? Its not really their business, or frankly yours. Its just the business of the people with this issue.
Translation: This topic is in no way wiener dog, gun toting, or queso related. Therefore Frazzled doesn't think its an issue.
I tried ordering cheese on my burger in a Spanish Burger King, they wanted to give me beer instead. Normally I wouldn't object, but I do love me some cheese.
Medium of Death wrote: I really don't get the callousness of some of the comments in here.
I think you could find lots of grey areas when trying to define gender, i'm not sure what the problem is with defining them as female. It's not a choice that people wake up with one day, and go in for surgery the next.
Why do you care? Its not really their business, or frankly yours. Its just the business of the people with this issue.
Translation: This topic is in no way wiener dog, gun toting, or queso related. Therefore Frazzled doesn't think its an issue.
Medium of Death wrote: I really don't get the callousness of some of the comments in here.
I think you could find lots of grey areas when trying to define gender, i'm not sure what the problem is with defining them as female. It's not a choice that people wake up with one day, and go in for surgery the next.
Why do you care? Its not really their business, or frankly yours. Its just the business of the people with this issue.
Translation: This topic is in no way wiener dog, gun toting, or queso related. Therefore Frazzled doesn't think its an issue.
What if it were transgendered wiener dogs?
With guns?
And on topic
I see this as similar to a name change - if someone changed their name, it would be rude to continue to refer to them using their old name.
If a man can only ever be a man and not be classed as a woman, even after surgery - would you make them use the mens toilets?
Medium of Death wrote: I really don't get the callousness of some of the comments in here.
I think you could find lots of grey areas when trying to define gender, i'm not sure what the problem is with defining them as female. It's not a choice that people wake up with one day, and go in for surgery the next.
Why do you care? Its not really their business, or frankly yours. Its just the business of the people with this issue.
Translation: This topic is in no way wiener dog, gun toting, or queso related. Therefore Frazzled doesn't think its an issue.
What if it were transgendered wiener dogs?
It wouldn't matter if ROdney thought he was a male or female. The bird he found/killed and secretly snuck into his kennel would still freak out the Wife, just like last night.
As long as you keep it out of my face, don't make me want to care about you (because I won't), bath regularly and shave if needed I don't care.
Medium of Death wrote: I really don't get the callousness of some of the comments in here.
I think you could find lots of grey areas when trying to define gender, i'm not sure what the problem is with defining them as female. It's not a choice that people wake up with one day, and go in for surgery the next.
Why do you care? Its not really their business, or frankly yours. Its just the business of the people with this issue.
Translation: This topic is in no way wiener dog, gun toting, or queso related. Therefore Frazzled doesn't think its an issue.
What if it were transgendered wiener dogs?
With guns?
And on topic
I see this as similar to a name change - if someone changed their name, it would be rude to continue to refer to them using their old name.
If a man can only ever be a man and not be classed as a woman, even after surgery - would you make them use the mens toilets?
Once again this is why Libertarians are superior. Its not he government's job to care whether you change your name or not, only that you fill out the right form in triplicate.
I tried ordering cheese on my burger in a Spanish Burger King, they wanted to give me beer instead. Normally I wouldn't object, but I do love me some cheese.
Waht, they serve beer in Spanish Burger Kings? Now we have a real issue to worry dakka. Why are the Spanish given beer when the rest of us have to put up with soda?
Sigvatr wrote: Born a man, you are a man. Period. Slapping some boobs on won't change that.
Gotta say I’m sort of in agreement with this.
If living your life dressing an behaving as if you are a member of the opposite sex makes you happy then by all means go for it, it’s your life and you should be able to live it as you see fit. But no matter how much cosmetic surgery you may have or hormone injections you may take, your new gender is still an artificial construct.
This persons natural biological state is that of a man. To claim otherwise is ridiculous.
How do you define who is born a man and who is born a woman then? What the doctor puts on a bit of paper? Anything else is not a black and white issue.
Kilkrazy wrote: By the X and Y chromosomes, except in cases where they do not conform to the usual standards.
But more to the point, people are assessing gender through gender identity or in short, what a person feels they are.
X and Y chromosomes genetically tell us who is male and female in our species, but it doesn't tell us psychologically and chemically who we are; that comes from a long process of discovery and self awareness.
So yes, you can be defined as man or woman genetically, but the identity is a whole 'nother subject.
Kilkrazy wrote: By the X and Y chromosomes, except in cases where they do not conform to the usual standards.
But more to the point, people are assessing gender through gender identity or in short, what a person feels they are.
X and Y chromosomes genetically tell us who is male and female in our species, but it doesn't tell us psychologically and chemically who we are; that comes from a long process of discovery and self awareness.
So yes, you can be defined as man or woman genetically, but the identity is a whole 'nother subject.
So what happens if someone self identifies psychologically as Napoleon, there could even be a chemical reason for it, should we treat them as Napoleon and get the British to exile them to Alba?
Kilkrazy wrote: By the X and Y chromosomes, except in cases where they do not conform to the usual standards.
But more to the point, people are assessing gender through gender identity or in short, what a person feels they are.
X and Y chromosomes genetically tell us who is male and female in our species, but it doesn't tell us psychologically and chemically who we are; that comes from a long process of discovery and self awareness.
So yes, you can be defined as man or woman genetically, but the identity is a whole 'nother subject.
X and Y do not tell us who is genetically male and female as not everyone is XX or XY. You can have XXX, XXY, XYY, or more. You can also have men with who are XX (see XX male syndrome) and women who are XY (see XY gonadal dysgenesis).
Realy there is not a clear black and white "This is Male. This is Female" in medicine. Most of us fit in to one of two extremes, but a large number fall somewhere in the middle.
So what happens if someone self identifies psychologically as Napoleon, there could even be a chemical reason for it, should we treat them as Napoleon and get the British to exile them to Alba?
Not realy the same thing. You can definitely prove that the said person is not and never has been, by the Grace of God and the Constitutions of the Republic, Emperor of the French, King of Italy, Protector of the Confederation of the Rhine, Mediator of the Helvetic Confederation.
You cannot prove someones genetic, psycological and physical gender identity very easely.
Kilkrazy wrote: By the X and Y chromosomes, except in cases where they do not conform to the usual standards.
But more to the point, people are assessing gender through gender identity or in short, what a person feels they are.
X and Y chromosomes genetically tell us who is male and female in our species, but it doesn't tell us psychologically and chemically who we are; that comes from a long process of discovery and self awareness.
So yes, you can be defined as man or woman genetically, but the identity is a whole 'nother subject.
X and Y do not tell us who is genetically male and female as not everyone is XX or XY. You can have XXX, XXY, XYY, or more. You can also have men with who are XX (see XX male syndrome) and women who are XY (see XY gonadal dysgenesis).
Realy there is not a clear black and white "This is Male. This is Female" in medicine. Most of us fit in to one of two extremes, but a large number fall somewhere in the middle.
So what happens if someone self identifies psychologically as Napoleon, there could even be a chemical reason for it, should we treat them as Napoleon and get the British to exile them to Alba?
Not realy the same thing. You can definitely prove that the said person is not and never has been, by the Grace of God and the Constitutions of the Republic, Emperor of the French, King of Italy, Protector of the Confederation of the Rhine, Mediator of the Helvetic Confederation.
You cannot prove someones genetic, psycological and physical gender identity very easely.
Yes, that was my hidden point.
Just having a Y chromosome doesn't always make you physically male.
Gender identity is of course largely a social construct.
Women should be arrested if they show their breasts in public because the USA has a puritan element in its culture and has sexualised breasts. Men have mammary glands too, but these are not sexualised.
Just the need alone that we MUST specify a gender for a driving license is silly enough.
How does that effect the ability to drive?
Does it help with ID of the person when they look like a female or confuse it?
It has a picture for goodness sake.
Question the system being enforced.
I figure the birth certificate would the more exciting document to change: but you were born that way then hence a "birth certificate".
I figure all other documents that insist on gender are fair game because if a citizen is uniquely identified it really does not matter what shape or colour they are.
Women should be arrested if they show their breasts in public because the USA has a puritan element in its culture and has sexualised breasts. Men have mammary glands too, but these are not sexualised.
Ye, I think that will remain the case. I don't agree with the law and think it is silly, but this is not likely to change, and there are much more important things to worry about in the world.
d-usa wrote: A DL has all that crap because there is no national ID card, so your drivers license is basically your only standardized means of ID for all purposes.
>_> Passports now have the option of a fanciful nationalized ID card I've got both the book and the card
Though there was some issue in a South American country where they were looking for a man that escape prison. Turns out while on the run he got a sex change and had been living as a woman. So the gender information on his license would have been pointless.
d-usa wrote: A DL has all that crap because there is no national ID card, so your drivers license is basically your only standardized means of ID for all purposes.
So I stand by my prior statement that if it says "male" and the person looks female and is missing the more obvious parts... the card is helpful and accurate for identification?
Seems to be exceeding the scope of the document they are making even bearing in mind the extended use as universal identification.
Whom is it to help other than bouncers and bartenders?
Bah, I have tried to treat people as a "person" with the whole mixed up things that make them what they are.
The whole Star Trek IDIC viewpoint is more than a fantasy.
Life is not neat and compartmentalized, I just see all this boiling down to a card with our special ID coded with our DNA and a skin scraping taken every time someone wants to confirm who we are. This need for certainty is pointing us to the big brother state.
Women should be arrested if they show their breasts in public because the USA has a puritan element in its culture and has sexualised breasts. Men have mammary glands too, but these are not sexualised.
Ye, I think that will remain the case. I don't agree with the law and think it is silly, but this is not likely to change, and there are much more important things to worry about in the world.
Yes, and indeed the USA is not far away from most western countries in this respect. I think a bare-breasted woman would be arrested if walking around a town in Britain, though breast-feeding is not uncommon.
In Saudi Arabia they might arrest a woman for wearing a short sleeve shirt.
Well, if you want to get into the technicalities of Picture IDs, the only real tool to identify somebody is the picture.
So it doesn't matter of the ID says male/female, since the information is not what matches the ID to the person. The picture is what connects the information on the ID to the person carrying it. All the data on it (address, gender, licensing) is not there to identify me and is meaningless without the picture.
So as long as the picture looks like the woman carrying it, she is identified as the owner of all the information contained in it including her status as male in the eyes of the state.
Why am I not surprised reading how the BMV handled this My only experience with them to date has been getting my permit. As a non-citizen I had to prove that I was eligible for a permit by providing documents from either State or Federal bodies. Knowing the run around we'd had with the SSA we over prepared, had more documents than we needed and brought in the list of what was acceptable. When I got called up to the desk I started handing over my documents to prove my identity and that I was allowed in the country. First I pulled out a letter from Homeland Security thinking its Federal and it says I'm here legally so it should help speed things along;
Desk Worker - "We can't accept that"
Me - "I thought that your list said that you accepted letters from Federal bodies" (hands over list)
Desk Worker calls for a supervisor
Supervisor - "I'm sorry but we don't accept anything from Homeland Security"
Me - "Aren't they a Federal body? I thought that the list you provide said that you accept letters from Federal bodies?"
Supervisor reads the list - "Yes we do accept forms from Federal bodies" (Supervisor points to the part on the list confirming that)
Me - "So is Homeland Security a Federal body?"
Supervisor now looking at me as if I'm stupid - "Of course it is"
Me - "Then can I use this letter as proof of ID because it comes from a Federal body?"
Supervisor - "No, we don't accept letters from Homeland Security"
Me - "I thought you said that you took letters from Federal bodies, and that Homeland Security was a federal body"
Supervisor - "We don't accept letters from Homeland Security"
At this point I just gave up and handed her the other paperwork we had to I could get on with it
We had a transgender? patient on our floor last night. The chart and notes referred to the patient as male, but the report was that the patient is transitioning to female. Some of the staff were reading the notes to see how other staff addressed the issue in regards to "he or she".
I finally suggested to the nurse that it would probably a lot quicker to just go into the room, talk to the patient, and ask "how do you prefer to be addressed, he or she". The patient is probably used to people being a bit confused and that way you honor his wishes and the patient knows you are making an efford to be respectful.
d-usa wrote: I finally suggested to the nurse that it would probably a lot quicker to just go into the room, talk to the patient, and ask "how do you prefer to be addressed, he or she". The patient is probably used to people being a bit confused and that way you honor his wishes and the patient knows you are making an efford to be respectful.
That's probably the best way to deal with it as it reduces the chances of offending the patient, and it also stops staff having to tip-toe around the issue. In that instance to you update the patient's chart saying what their preference is?
Good on you, that helps assure the patient that their needs are being taken care of and that people respect their wishes
That link is just mind boggling. I think that it could get nasty and I really want to hear the justification for the gender reassignment if there was no legitimate medical reason.
In my opinion the surgery should not have been performed, and instead it should have been left to the child to make a decision concerning gender when the child came of age.
Yes, and indeed the USA is not far away from most western countries in this respect. I think a bare-breasted woman would be arrested if walking around a town in Britain, though breast-feeding is not uncommon.
In Saudi Arabia they might arrest a woman for wearing a short sleeve shirt.
Ye, its all over the world. The UK would be much the same. Although, as I said, I don't think men should not be wondering around shopping topless. There is a time and a place. Don't ware shorts and a t-shirt to work, don't ware a suit to the beach. It is more a hope for gender blindness rather than something I would go out and campain for (and its not about seeing more tittys, as most would probably be... not worth looking at as it were. On the same level as me and my pasty white gut).
Sigvatr wrote: Born a man, you are a man. Period. Slapping some boobs on won't change that.
Congratulations, you win the "most ignorant and offensive comment of the day" award. Possibly for the entire week even.
No you are ignorant and offensive to me.
This kowtowing to every single freak out there and then guilting the majority with political correctness bull crap is going to destroy western civilization.
It's hardly political correctness.
It's not being a dick.
If you find it odd that's okay, I don't particularly understand it but it's not gong to hurt me if someone wants to have their gender reassigned.
Sigvatr wrote: Born a man, you are a man. Period. Slapping some boobs on won't change that.
Congratulations, you win the "most ignorant and offensive comment of the day" award. Possibly for the entire week even.
No you are ignorant and offensive to me.
This kowtowing to every single freak out there and then guilting the majority with political correctness bull crap is going to destroy western civilization.
I don't see kowtowing in this article. We have the DMV denying Miss Jones the change in gender on her driver's license. Since her driver's license, as has been stated in this thread, is one of the only valid forms of ID we have here in the states, Miss Jones is legally recognized as a man due to her government issued State ID. So since men may walk around topless in public, such a thing is therefore technically legal in the state of TN because her government issue State ID, Miss Jones had every legal backing to walk around shirtless. Fun Fact, your signature is only your legal signature when it matches the signature on your driver's license/government issued ID. So, if your name is George and you sign your name with a little smiley face in the G, then that is part of your legal signature (I actually know a guy that did that with his name thus my example). So it would be fairly safe for Miss Jones to assume that if her legal signature was on her Driver's License, then her legal gender could be on the Driver's License.
This begs the question of what documentation was Miss Jones missing. According to Transequality.org, she simply needed to provide the following: Applicant needs medical documentation stating that SRS has been completed and if name change is desired an amended birth certificate or a court order is needed. Which she would have already had since to change your gender with the Social Security Administration you need medical records showing the completion of your surgery.
SickSix wrote: This kowtowing to every single freak out there and then guilting the majority with political correctness bull crap is going to destroy western civilization.
This kowtowing to every single freak out there and then guilting the majority with political correctness bull crap is going to destroy western civilization.
Freak?
That's homophobia, buddy. You're about 1 post away from my ignore list.
Transgender people are not, by default, "freaks". Nor are lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, and other non-heteronormative people such as interracial couples, straight couples that subvert gender norms by have a working mom and stay at home dad, etc.
People who are different from you are not inherently bad just for being different. Meh. I don't really want to start posting in off topic again, but this is seriously offensive.
There are plenty of locales around the country where a woman being topless in public is not a crime. None of the laws are state wide as far as I know, but are more like here in Oregon.
Women should be arrested if they show their breasts in public because the USA has a puritan element in its culture and has sexualised breasts. Men have mammary glands too, but these are not sexualised.
Ye, I think that will remain the case. I don't agree with the law and think it is silly, but this is not likely to change, and there are much more important things to worry about in the world.
Actually in Texas it is otherwise legal to do that here.
SickSix wrote:This kowtowing to every single freak out there and then guilting the majority with political correctness bull crap is going to destroy western civilization.
if this article were about a black man, would you have used the phrase "kowtowing to a n***** "? If it were about a homosexual, would you have used the phrase "kowtowing to a f***** "?
Please refrain from using slurs and derogatory, judgement-laded terms when describing transgendered people.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Why am I not surprised reading how the BMV handled this My only experience with them to date has been getting my permit. As a non-citizen I had to prove that I was eligible for a permit by providing documents from either State or Federal bodies. Knowing the run around we'd had with the SSA we over prepared, had more documents than we needed and brought in the list of what was acceptable. When I got called up to the desk I started handing over my documents to prove my identity and that I was allowed in the country. First I pulled out a letter from Homeland Security thinking its Federal and it says I'm here legally so it should help speed things along;
Desk Worker - "We can't accept that"
Me - "I thought that your list said that you accepted letters from Federal bodies" (hands over list)
Desk Worker calls for a supervisor
Supervisor - "I'm sorry but we don't accept anything from Homeland Security"
Me - "Aren't they a Federal body? I thought that the list you provide said that you accept letters from Federal bodies?"
Supervisor reads the list - "Yes we do accept forms from Federal bodies" (Supervisor points to the part on the list confirming that)
Me - "So is Homeland Security a Federal body?"
Supervisor now looking at me as if I'm stupid - "Of course it is"
Me - "Then can I use this letter as proof of ID because it comes from a Federal body?"
Supervisor - "No, we don't accept letters from Homeland Security"
Me - "I thought you said that you took letters from Federal bodies, and that Homeland Security was a federal body"
Supervisor - "We don't accept letters from Homeland Security"
At this point I just gave up and handed her the other paperwork we had to I could get on with it
I think before you are permitted to vote you should be required to have to deal with the local tax office or the DMV in the last 6 months, just as a refresher.
We had a transgender? patient on our floor last night. The chart and notes referred to the patient as male, but the report was that the patient is transitioning to female. Some of the staff were reading the notes to see how other staff addressed the issue in regards to "he or she".
I finally suggested to the nurse that it would probably a lot quicker to just go into the room, talk to the patient, and ask "how do you prefer to be addressed, he or she". The patient is probably used to people being a bit confused and that way you honor his wishes and the patient knows you are making an efford to be respectful.
No no, the standard Frazzled approach is to just address everyone as "hey dickbag."
Frazzled wrote: Actually in Texas it is otherwise legal to do that here.
Keep in mind Fraz, the average Texan would probably just ask "do you call yourself a man or woman?" and just use the answer to that instead, even while the government tries to be an arsehole about it. Our state is a bit contradictory at times-- Texans are generally nice people, but at the same time, our government is known for its vicious politicking.
Frazzled wrote: I think before you are permitted to vote you should be required to have to deal with the local tax office or the DMV in the last 6 months, just as a refresher.
Lucky me then. In the past six months I've had the DMV, filed our taxes (first time ever having to do that) and had to deal with Homeland Security Seems that no matter where you live dealing with bureaucrats has the same charm.....
Frazzled wrote: No no, the standard Frazzled approach is to just address everyone as "hey dickbag."
hotsauceman1 wrote: I hate the DMV, they are anal to a degree, I go over a curb, I fail, god do you know how many times i see experianced drivers do that?
*Raises hand* I haven't run over a curb in my 20+ years of driving young man...
The last time I ran over a curb it was something like five years ago, because some arsehole truck driver blocked my exit from a gas station so I took an alternate route to get back on the road.
hotsauceman1 wrote: I hate the DMV, they are anal to a degree, I go over a curb, I fail, god do you know how many times i see experianced drivers do that?
*Raises hand* I haven't run over a curb in my 20+ years of driving young man...
Do you need glasses?
I needed to not be driving a car that has a bigger footprint then a boat.
This begs the question of what documentation was Miss Jones missing. According to Transequality.org, she simply needed to provide the following: Applicant needs medical documentation stating that SRS has been completed and if name change is desired an amended birth certificate or a court order is needed. Which she would have already had since to change your gender with the Social Security Administration you need medical records showing the completion of your surgery.
Ah, I suspect you may have hit on what happend here... It may be someone being transphobic, but now I'm aware of this I would guess, without more information, that she was being difficult. Knowing what the public can be like with public body's possibly it went something more like:
"I want to change the sex on my licence"
"Mam, we need to see X bit of information"
"Can't you tell that I'm a woman"
"Yes mam, but we need the correct bit of paper"
Etc.
Almost all red tape, as anyone who has worked in a public body will tell you, is down to a member of the public doing something stupid, complaining and the management trying to make it sure it never happens again.
Steve steveson wrote: Ah, I suspect you may have hit on what happend here... It may be someone being transphobic, but now I'm aware of this I would guess, without more information, that she was being difficult. Knowing what the public can be like with public body's possibly it went something more like.
But again, to get her gender changed with the SSA, she already needed documentation confirming the completion of her SRS. Like that's one of the only things with the SSA for gender changing that you have 1 option for. So if she wasn't missing documentation, why wouldn't they let her do it?
I needed to not be driving a car that has a bigger footprint then a boat.
Google Ohio Maneuverability Test, you have to do that test in 1 single movement forwards, and then 1 single movement backwards. I did it in a minivan, you should be fine...
SickSix wrote:This kowtowing to every single freak out there and then guilting the majority with political correctness bull crap is going to destroy western civilization.
if this article were about a black man, would you have used the phrase "kowtowing to a n***** "? If it were about a homosexual, would you have used the phrase "kowtowing to a f***** "?
Please refrain from using slurs and derogatory, judgement-laded terms when describing transgendered people.
Well his use of the word freak does actually fit the definition of freak according to the dictionary definition of freak which is "A thing or occurrence that is markedly unusual or irregular:"
Transgendered are something that is noticeably unusual.
DeathReaper wrote: Well his use of the word freak does actually fit the definition of freak according to the dictionary definition of freak which is "A thing or occurrence that is markedly unusual or irregular:"
Transgendered are something that is noticeably unusual.
Yes, because the literal dictionary definition of the word "freak" is the only thing that matters here, not its much more common and offensive meaning of "eww, gross".
SickSix wrote:This kowtowing to every single freak out there and then guilting the majority with political correctness bull crap is going to destroy western civilization.
if this article were about a black man, would you have used the phrase "kowtowing to a n***** "? If it were about a homosexual, would you have used the phrase "kowtowing to a f***** "?
Please refrain from using slurs and derogatory, judgement-laded terms when describing transgendered people.
Well his use of the word freak does actually fit the definition of freak according to the dictionary definition of freak which is "A thing or occurrence that is markedly unusual or irregular:"
Transgendered are something that is noticeably unusual.
And guess what the dictionary definition of "n***** " is? It's a derogatory term for a man of African-American descent. I think most black people are noticeably of African descent. Would you use the same justification for using that term when referring to them?
Or are you claiming that calling someone a freak isn't derogatory?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
KalashnikovMarine wrote:I'm done with this thread, I gotta say even for Dakka, some of your folks are just sad.
Yeah, I think I'll take that same path. I suspect I might have difficulty keeping my mostly-pleasant charm about me in here.
Sigvatr wrote: Born a man, you are a man. Period. Slapping some boobs on won't change that.
Congratulations, you win the "most ignorant and offensive comment of the day" award. Possibly for the entire week even.
No you are ignorant and offensive to me.
This kowtowing to every single freak out there and then guilting the majority with political correctness bull crap is going to destroy western civilization.
And you win the most bigoted and naive statement award.
So, tell me, Mr Whitebread, starchcollared, conservative, Sunday best, morally pure, missionary position, fifty shades of beige... Just what constitutes a 'freak' for you eh? Do you still switch off the tv when Elvis is shown gyrating, or perhaps you avert your eyes and genuflect in terror if a woman with her ankles showing wanders past you on the street (assuming, against the indicator of your statement, that you get out of the house at all...)? Also, I suspect that your actual, secret definitions of normal (vs 'freak) are actually a very small minority and on the steady decline. If they share your repulsive views, then that's all the better for the rest of us, the majority of oddities.
So, tell me, Mr Whitebread, starchcollared, conservative, Sunday best, morally pure, missionary position, fifty shades of beige... Just what constitutes a 'freak' for you eh?
Cat lovers. Any person who loves cats is a person that should not be allowed to live.
Well I am sure lots of people are freaks to me. But so long as they keep their rights from touching my nose, thats the price of a free society. Deal with it. Vive Le Difference!
Sigvatr wrote: Born a man, you are a man. Period. Slapping some boobs on won't change that.
Congratulations, you win the "most ignorant and offensive comment of the day" award. Possibly for the entire week even.
No you are ignorant and offensive to me.
This kowtowing to every single freak out there and then guilting the majority with political correctness bull crap is going to destroy western civilization.
And you win the most bigoted and naive statement award.
So, tell me, Mr Whitebread, starchcollared, conservative, Sunday best, morally pure, missionary position, fifty shades of beige... Just what constitutes a 'freak' for you eh? Do you still switch off the tv when Elvis is shown gyrating, or perhaps you avert your eyes and genuflect in terror if a woman with her ankles showing wanders past you on the street (assuming, against the indicator of your statement, that you get out of the house at all...)? Also, I suspect that your actual, secret definitions of normal (vs 'freak) are actually a very small minority and on the steady decline. If they share your repulsive views, then that's all the better for the rest of us, the majority of oddities.
So, tell me, Mr Whitebread, starchcollared, conservative, Sunday best, morally pure, missionary position, fifty shades of beige... Just what constitutes a 'freak' for you eh?
Cat lovers. Any person who loves cats is a person that should not be allowed to live.
Well I am sure lots of people are freaks to me. But so long as they keep their rights from touching my nose, thats the price of a free society. Deal with it. Vive Le Difference!
The truth has been spoken.
In seriousness... Oh dear. My best wishes to the poor woman stuck in this mess.
People who think of gender or even sex as a simple binary male/female divide are simply ignorant and haven't studied this area of biology at all.
As was well-described earlier in the thread, even if we're talking about chromosomal or physical SEX (as opposed to gender, which is more fluid and has to do with identity and societal conventions), nature has a lot more variety than just male/female.
MOST human beings are xx female or xy male, but quite a lot are not. If you are unable to wrap your head around that, and that causes you to apply words like "freak", or "mutilated dood" to these folks, then your ignorance becomes other peoples' problem, and you are doing a disservice to yourself and everyone around you.
Mannahnin wrote: People who think of gender or even sex as a simple binary male/female divide are simply ignorant and haven't studied this area of biology at all.
As was well-described earlier in the thread, even if we're talking about chromosomal or physical SEX (as opposed to gender, which is more fluid and has to do with identity and societal conventions), nature has a lot more variety than just male/female.
MOST human beings are xx female or xy male, but quite a lot are not. If you are unable to wrap your head around that, and that causes you to apply words like "freak", or "mutilated dood" to these folks, then your ignorance becomes other peoples' problem, and you are doing a disservice to yourself and everyone around you.
First of all..I don't appreciate you changing my post around so you could try and make my post to the same level as the "freak" post. Not cool at all.
2nd of all..I just don't buy into the new PC group think that some people do. Much like beauty, Ignorance is in the eye of the beholder.
How exactly is it NOT the same as the "freak" post? How is anything you just said NOT a pile of ignorant horse gak? Treating human beings the way they deserve to be treated, with some actual freaking respect, isn't "PC group think" it's "being a decent freaking human being.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: How exactly is it NOT the same as the "freak" post? How is anything you just said NOT a pile of ignorant horse gak? Treating human beings the way they deserve to be treated, with some actual freaking respect, isn't "PC group think" it's "being a decent freaking human being.
I would rather be honest with someone, then enable them.
That's not the same thing as disrespecting them.
What about the people that get 100's of piercings, and tattoos. Are you going to enable that behavior, or are you going to tell them they have a problem?
KalashnikovMarine wrote: How exactly is it NOT the same as the "freak" post? How is anything you just said NOT a pile of ignorant horse gak? Treating human beings the way they deserve to be treated, with some actual freaking respect, isn't "PC group think" it's "being a decent freaking human being.
I know everyone thinks differently, but I read GG's post to mean that DMV has issues with dealing with "normal" people (we're all freaks, it's just a matter of degree and overt-ness), and is sarcastically pointing out the relative hilarity of some people's reactions here.
In that aspect, I rather agree with him.
On the other hand, I have come to the assessment that if a person comes into DMV or anyplace else, and has the "duck" thing going on... who are they to argue? What I mean is, if it looks like a woman, and talks like a woman, it must be a woman right? Conversely if it walks like a dude, talks like a dude, it's a dude right? My personal feelings on the matter don't matter.
Frankly, I think that we'd all be much better off if we all followed the "Golden Rule", even if not followers of the religion.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: How exactly is it NOT the same as the "freak" post? How is anything you just said NOT a pile of ignorant horse gak? Treating human beings the way they deserve to be treated, with some actual freaking respect, isn't "PC group think" it's "being a decent freaking human being.
I would rather be honest with someone, then enable them.
That's not the same thing as disrespecting them.
What about the people that get 100's of piercings, and tattoos. Are you going to enable that behavior, or are you going to tell them they have a problem?
GG
What behavior? The right to do with your body what wish?
KalashnikovMarine wrote: How exactly is it NOT the same as the "freak" post? How is anything you just said NOT a pile of ignorant horse gak? Treating human beings the way they deserve to be treated, with some actual freaking respect, isn't "PC group think" it's "being a decent freaking human being.
I would rather be honest with someone, then enable them.
That's not the same thing as disrespecting them.
What about the people that get 100's of piercings, and tattoos. Are you going to enable that behavior, or are you going to tell them they have a problem?
GG
So a known and diagnosed psychological and biological disorder is now in ANY WAY comparable to voluntary behavior that also, shockingly enough does NOTHING to harm you or affect the way you live your life? Which again, oddly neither do trans individuals. Why do you care so much about other people's lives that you have to tear them down for their medical conditions or personal life choices? Do you need to control things that much? Is it that vital for you to impose your bronze age morality on everyone around you?
generalgrog wrote: 2nd of all..I just don't buy into the new PC group think that some people do. Much like beauty, Ignorance is in the eye of the beholder.
Too bad, because you're wrong. There is clear evidence that transgendered people are suffering from a mismatch between body and brain structure, not making a "lifestyle choice" or any similar nonsense. Refusing to accept and treat the problem (by fixing the body to match the brain) is equivalent to refusing to help someone who was born without a leg and declaring it "PC group think" to argue that the person has a right to get a replacement leg and have their choice to have two legs respected.
By referring to the person discussed in this thread as a mutilated dood, he's making the same error that sicksix and other folks have made. A hurtful and dangerous error.
It's also silly to refer to "new PC groupthink", while engaging in ignorant groupthink. Sticking to binary concepts of sex and gender because they're more convenient and require less thought, regardless of reality or the consequences to other human beings. It's not even a question of "new" vs "old". Many cultures have had more expansive and accurate concepts of sex and identity than that. Many Native American tribes, for example, had a concept referred to as "two-spirited", referring to people who had aspects of both male and female.
Judeo-Christianity hasn't been real big on that whole 'your body, do what you want' thing since the Torah was written by the Jews in exile in Babylon.
There's a line in Leviticius decrying piercings and tatoos as 'an abomination unto God' (yep, the exact same phrasing used to decry homosexuality).
The rabbis wrote the Torah that way to keep the exiled Jews, surrounded by Babylonians who DID get tattoos, piercings, ate seafood and pork, etc, etc, etc, from loosing their cultural disticntivness and blending into the greater Babylonian culture... which would have left the rabbis with no cultural or political power.
Much of the Bible is explained by lust for power over others on the part of the writers.
See I've always thought the "The body is a temple" argument should be used FOR tattoos not against them, cause what's a temple without stained glass right?
Mannahnin wrote: It's not even a question of "new" vs "old". Many cultures have had more expansive and accurate concepts of sex and identity than that. Many Native American tribes, for example, had a concept referred to as "two-spirited", referring to people who had aspects of both male and female.
But since we brought up "new vs old", I suppose it's worth mentioning that the idea of a binary choice of male\female - straight\gay hasn't even really been standard in the US since a report 60 years ago.
Mannahnin wrote: It's not even a question of "new" vs "old". Many cultures have had more expansive and accurate concepts of sex and identity than that. Many Native American tribes, for example, had a concept referred to as "two-spirited", referring to people who had aspects of both male and female.
But since we brought up "new vs old", I suppose it's worth mentioning that the idea of a binary choice of male\female - straight\gay hasn't even really been standard in the US since a report 60 years ago.
I'd probably be a 1 or 2 on that scale, I'm sexually attracted to females but I have a few ideas on what makes a good-looking male (although I usually mix up with what I think is cool is attractive for males despite not being the same thing) and sometimes I have thoughts of homosexual sex
(I wanted to see if I could get turned on by gay behaviour but it didn't work for me) despite not getting any pleasure out of it so I only view it neutrally as I don't get grossed about it either, it just becomes a curiosity thing with me.
What is the best measure now? In my sociology course we talked about how sexuality isn't as black and white as some might believe and that the barriers between homosexuality, heterosexuality and bisexuality can be quite fluid.
I'm totally on board with letting people be who they want to be. It's no skin off my nuts.
I do wish people would act more dignified about stuff though. And by no means am I focusing that lens on the lgbt community - it holds for everyone. Getting frustrated at bureaucracy acting like a bureaucracy is normal and it happens to all of us. No need to go make a scene, whether it's whipping your tits out or screaming at the teller or driving your car into a wall or what have you.
Bromsy wrote: I'm totally on board with letting people be who they want to be. It's no skin off my nuts.
I do wish people would act more dignified about stuff though. And by no means am I focusing that lens on the lgbt community - it holds for everyone. Getting frustrated at bureaucracy acting like a bureaucracy is normal and it happens to all of us. No need to go make a scene, whether it's whipping your tits out or screaming at the teller or driving your car into a wall or what have you.
While true, do you think that a person in such a unique state as the one in the OP would have gotten any resolution (positive or negative) if they had just gone about their merry way, with an "incorrect" drivers license? What would have happened, had she been pulled over for speeding, or a tail light? The police officer would more than likely have taken her in for having a "false" ID, and instead of looking like a hero or martyr to some, she'd look like a complete villain (especially in a place as deep in the bible belt as Tennessee)
Bromsy wrote: I'm totally on board with letting people be who they want to be. It's no skin off my nuts.
I do wish people would act more dignified about stuff though. And by no means am I focusing that lens on the lgbt community - it holds for everyone. Getting frustrated at bureaucracy acting like a bureaucracy is normal and it happens to all of us. No need to go make a scene, whether it's whipping your tits out or screaming at the teller or driving your car into a wall or what have you.
While true, do you think that a person in such a unique state as the one in the OP would have gotten any resolution (positive or negative) if they had just gone about their merry way, with an "incorrect" drivers license? What would have happened, had she been pulled over for speeding, or a tail light? The police officer would more than likely have taken her in for having a "false" ID, and instead of looking like a hero or martyr to some, she'd look like a complete villain (especially in a place as deep in the bible belt as Tennessee)
Do you really think a police officer would have arrested Andrea for "false ID"? Because I think that is fairly ludicrous. People don't get arrested for having expired IDs, or incorrect names/addresses on their IDs. The theoretical police officer would probably not have even said anything.
Hard to say. It's just speculation, of course. What we do know is that the DMV folks refused to let her update her ID, which is dumb. By taking off her shirt she underscored the point that physically she looks female, and that's all the DMV should really care about.
So a known and diagnosed psychological and biological disorder is now in ANY WAY comparable to voluntary behavior that also, shockingly enough does NOTHING to harm you or affect the way you live your life? Which again, oddly neither do trans individuals. Why do you care so much about other people's lives that you have to tear them down for their medical conditions or personal life choices? Do you need to control things that much? Is it that vital for you to impose your bronze age morality on everyone around you?
There is a fallacy in thinking that the philosophy of the transgendered and homosexual "hurts no one". How many young confused men have been bamboozled into becoming something they are not, because no one had the guts to stand up to the lie they were being told, that there are "alternate lifestyles" and these "alternate lifestyles" are just fine because they hurt no one.
There are many people that have come out of that lifestyle, including transgendered people, who come to realize they were lied to, by the PC Big brother police.
And yes, those people were indeed harmed.. by the enablers, that had no intestinal fortitude to stand up to the so often modern problem of calling what is wrong.... right. And what is right...wrong
Bromsy wrote: No need to go make a scene, whether it's whipping your tits out or screaming at the teller or driving your car into a wall or what have you.
But you have to look at her behavior in context. You or I (presumably) wouldn't get too upset about a mistake on our driver's license, because we don't have to deal with mistakes (or "mistakes" that are really just bigotry) in our everyday lives. If the DMV gets my eye color wrong it's slightly annoying and I might complain to my friends about how incompetent the DMV is, but it's really no big deal. On the other hand, the person in the OP has probably had to deal with a constant supply of people making "mistakes" about her gender, insisting that she's "really a man", etc. So in that context refusal to get it right is a lot more serious, and justifies a stronger reaction.
purplefood wrote: PC Big Brother Police... lets you do what you want?
NO they make you think that doing what is wrong..is actually right.
Like thought crimes.
For example look at some of the reactions in this thread... anyone who has an opinion that transgender/homsexuality is wrong is immediately labeled ignorant/backwards/or a bigot.
The other way of looking at it, as far as why there is such, shall we say, "across the aisle" agreement is that there is something in this story for everyone. Liberals are typically predisposed to the struggles of the LGBT community as that political persuasion has a plank of social welfare in it; but small "c" conservatives & libertarians, I presume, can't help but be displeased at this display of what to them is a typical brutish overreach of a government bureaucracy interfering with your most basic right; to be free to be yourself. This kind of meddling in private affairs with no actual governmental interest really has to be anathema to them.
generalgrog wrote: There is a fallacy in thinking that the philosophy of the transgendered and homosexual "hurts no one".
There is no "philosophy" here. We're talking about clear scientific evidence that transgendered people have various physical differences from "normal" people, including a mismatch between brain structure (especially the internal "map" of how your body is supposed to be) and body. That's way more than just a deciding one day that it would be fun to be a woman instead of a man.
How many young confused men have been bamboozled into becoming something they are not, because no one had the guts to stand up to the lie they were being told, that there are "alternate lifestyles" and these "alternate lifestyles" are just fine because they hurt no one.
Very, very few I suspect. Considering how much hate these people face from the rest of society (extreme risk of depression/suicide, frequently losing their jobs, etc) you'd have to be very serious about having a brain/body mismatch to decide you're transgendered and put up with the hell of trying to fix the problem. Very few people would be willing to face that just because they had a random "hey, I could be a girl" impulse one day and nobody tried to stop them.
Also, virtually all of the "harm" done by those "alternative lifestyles" comes from outside. If you take away the bigots and just leave people to do what they want instead of telling them how repulsive they are and how they're going to hell for their disgusting lifestyle you'll find that the harm goes away.
generalgrog wrote: There is a fallacy in thinking that the philosophy of the transgendered and homosexual "hurts no one". How many young confused men have been bamboozled into becoming something they are not, because no one had the guts to stand up to the lie they were being told, that there are "alternate lifestyles" and these "alternate lifestyles" are just fine because they hurt no one.
There are many people that have come out of that lifestyle, including transgendered people, who come to realize they were lied to, by the PC Big brother police.
And yes, those people were indeed harmed.. by the enablers, that had no intestinal fortitude to stand up to the so often modern problem of calling what is wrong.... right. And what is right...wrong
GG
Seeing as many jurisdictions make it compulsory to undergo therapy, have to start transitioning to their desired gender over a period of years, take hormones for a protracted period and then are only eligible for surgery after psychological examination I would hope that very few, if any, "confused men have been bamboozled into becoming something they are not"
Bromsy wrote: No need to go make a scene, whether it's whipping your tits out or screaming at the teller or driving your car into a wall or what have you.
But you have to look at her behavior in context. You or I (presumably) wouldn't get too upset about a mistake on our driver's license, because we don't have to deal with mistakes (or "mistakes" that are really just bigotry) in our everyday lives. If the DMV gets my eye color wrong it's slightly annoying and I might complain to my friends about how incompetent the DMV is, but it's really no big deal. On the other hand, the person in the OP has probably had to deal with a constant supply of people making "mistakes" about her gender, insisting that she's "really a man", etc. So in that context refusal to get it right is a lot more serious, and justifies a stronger reaction.
Oh, I get that. I'm just a pretty self controlled person and dream that others would match my lofty standards. If for some reason I decided to undergo gender reassignment, the chances of me baring my bosoms to prove I'm a woman to the DMV are still functionally nil. Now if the DMV took me out to a nice dinner and bought me some drinks, that might change things.
So a known and diagnosed psychological and biological disorder is now in ANY WAY comparable to voluntary behavior that also, shockingly enough does NOTHING to harm you or affect the way you live your life? Which again, oddly neither do trans individuals. Why do you care so much about other people's lives that you have to tear them down for their medical conditions or personal life choices? Do you need to control things that much? Is it that vital for you to impose your bronze age morality on everyone around you?
There is a fallacy in thinking that the philosophy of the transgendered and homosexual "hurts no one". How many young confused men have been bamboozled into becoming something they are not, because no one had the guts to stand up to the lie they were being told, that there are "alternate lifestyles" and these "alternate lifestyles" are just fine because they hurt no one.
There are many people that have come out of that lifestyle, including transgendered people, who come to realize they were lied to, by the PC Big brother police.
And yes, those people were indeed harmed.. by the enablers, that had no intestinal fortitude to stand up to the so often modern problem of calling what is wrong.... right. And what is right...wrong
GG
Edited until I know what the feth you're talking about.
generalgrog wrote: For example look at some of the reactions in this thread... anyone who has an opinion that transgender/homsexuality is wrong is immediately labeled ignorant/backwards/or a bigot.
Thats classic "thought police" stuff right there.
So, General - if I may be so bold to ask - what made you decide to choose being heterosexual?
purplefood wrote: PC Big Brother Police... lets you do what you want?
NO they make you think that doing what is wrong..is actually right.
Like thought crimes.
For example look at some of the reactions in this thread... anyone who has an opinion that transgender/homsexuality is wrong is immediately labeled ignorant/backwards/or a bigot.
Thats classic "thought police" stuff right there.
GG
I'd like to think I feel that because I'm not a dick...
If I'm not hurt or particularly put out of my way why do I care if someone wants to get their gender reassigned? Why do you care? What's your interest in other people's genitals? Why do you care who they have sex with?
Such questions are a Thursday built on...
generalgrog wrote: There is a fallacy in thinking that the philosophy of the transgendered and homosexual "hurts no one". How many young confused men have been bamboozled into becoming something they are not, because no one had the guts to stand up to the lie they were being told, that there are "alternate lifestyles" and these "alternate lifestyles" are just fine because they hurt no one.
There are many people that have come out of that lifestyle, including transgendered people, who come to realize they were lied to, by the PC Big brother police.
And yes, those people were indeed harmed.. by the enablers, that had no intestinal fortitude to stand up to the so often modern problem of calling what is wrong.... right. And what is right...wrong
GG
Seeing as many jurisdictions make it compulsory to undergo therapy, have to start transitioning to their desired gender over a period of years, take hormones for a protracted period and then are only eligible for surgery after psychological examination I would hope that very few, if any, "confused men have been bamboozled into becoming something they are not"
Yes, there are men who have went all the way with the hormones and surgery, only to find out they had it all wrong. Now they face years of undoing all the harm they did to themselves.
generalgrog wrote: And yes, those people were indeed harmed.. by the enablers, that had no intestinal fortitude to stand up to the so often modern problem of calling what is wrong.... right. And what is right...wrong.
That's a modern problem? Huh. Here's me thinking that, for example, it's historically a problem that people have called things "right" and "natural", like slavery, and racism, and bigotry, and intolerance, and the domination of women, that were in fact wrong, and evil.
In reality, overall we're making progress. We're growing up a bit as a species as the boundaries of our knowledge expand and push back the areas of darkness; of fear and ignorance. It wasn't all that long ago, for example, that folks made arguments that interracial couples shouldn't be allowed to adopt. Or that there were laws forbidding interreligious marriage.
If a person COULD be talked into thinking that they're gay, that's clear evidence that sexuality isn't as black and white as some folks claim. Real people exist on a spectrum of variations. Gradations of color or shades of grey. Attempting to shoehorn everyone into being black or white is dumb, harmful, and ignorant. If, as Ouze asked, one day you had to make a conscious decision to be heterosexual, that means you're somewhere in the middle. Me, I never had a choice in the matter. Dudes just don't appeal. So maybe it's easier for me to understand the transgender folks than you; I just know that I'm straight, and a dude. So if someone else knows, in their soul and their heart, that they're gay, or actually the opposite gender from their body's physical sex, that provokes sympathy in me;, rather than skepticism.
So a known and diagnosed psychological and biological disorder is now in ANY WAY comparable to voluntary behavior that also, shockingly enough does NOTHING to harm you or affect the way you live your life? Which again, oddly neither do trans individuals. Why do you care so much about other people's lives that you have to tear them down for their medical conditions or personal life choices? Do you need to control things that much? Is it that vital for you to impose your bronze age morality on everyone around you?
There is a fallacy in thinking that the philosophy of the transgendered and homosexual "hurts no one". How many young confused men have been bamboozled into becoming something they are not, because no one had the guts to stand up to the lie they were being told, that there are "alternate lifestyles" and these "alternate lifestyles" are just fine because they hurt no one.
There are many people that have come out of that lifestyle, including transgendered people, who come to realize they were lied to, by the PC Big brother police.
And yes, those people were indeed harmed.. by the enablers, that had no intestinal fortitude to stand up to the so often modern problem of calling what is wrong.... right. And what is right...wrong
GG
And it is their mistake, No ones elses. You own every choice you make in your life. As Cady stanton said, We all walk alone in this life
generalgrog wrote: Yes, there are men who have went all the way with the hormones and surgery, only to find out they had it all wrong. Now they face years of undoing all the harm they did to themselves.
How many men? How does that number compare to the number of people who did all of that and were happy with the results, or were denied that opportunity (or had people like you telling them they're "really men" and making their lives miserable) and hated the results? Do you actually have any solid evidence that this is a non-trivial problem, or did you find a tiny number of cases from bigoted sources eager to present a tiny minority as the majority?
Mannahnin wrote: Hard to say. It's just speculation, of course. What we do know is that the DMV folks refused to let her update her ID, which is dumb. By taking off her shirt she underscored the point that physically she looks female, and that's all the DMV should really care about.
You know, I do see a common link to what many are saying.
People should be allowed to "feel out" how they are in their own skin.
Others REALLY should keep their traps shut on whichever way the wind blows for or against "normal" vs. "alternative" life styles.
Every last one of us has an agenda, well intentioned or not.
The person only needs our support when they themselves have committed to whom and how they want to be.
I have had a lifetime of being told who to be and quite violently told people to go stuff themselves and focus more on correcting their own lives before feeling entitled to messing with mine.
I have been blessed with making friends of a huge cross-section of race, gender and sex orientation. Just provide acceptance of their choices and applaud their honesty to themselves. Anyone else of strong opinions I respectfully ask to keep their trap shut and suck it up, the moaning of what is right only displays an inflexible mind...
Mannahnin wrote: By referring to the person discussed in this thread as a mutilated dood, he's making the same error that sicksix and other folks have made. A hurtful and dangerous error.
It's also silly to refer to "new PC groupthink", while engaging in ignorant groupthink. Sticking to binary concepts of sex and gender because they're more convenient and require less thought, regardless of reality or the consequences to other human beings. It's not even a question of "new" vs "old". Many cultures have had more expansive and accurate concepts of sex and identity than that. Many Native American tribes, for example, had a concept referred to as "two-spirited", referring to people who had aspects of both male and female.
Well he is a mutilated dood. That dood is now a woman. As long as she shaves if she needs to: 1) who cares? 2) what business is it of the government or anyone else? 3) again, who cares.
Congrats you're now a girl. For the love of god just drive better than my wife.
So a known and diagnosed psychological and biological disorder is now in ANY WAY comparable to voluntary behavior that also, shockingly enough does NOTHING to harm you or affect the way you live your life? Which again, oddly neither do trans individuals. Why do you care so much about other people's lives that you have to tear them down for their medical conditions or personal life choices? Do you need to control things that much? Is it that vital for you to impose your bronze age morality on everyone around you?
There is a fallacy in thinking that the philosophy of the transgendered and homosexual "hurts no one". How many young confused men have been bamboozled into becoming something they are not, because no one had the guts to stand up to the lie they were being told, that there are "alternate lifestyles" and these "alternate lifestyles" are just fine because they hurt no one.
There are many people that have come out of that lifestyle, including transgendered people, who come to realize they were lied to, by the PC Big brother police.
And yes, those people were indeed harmed.. by the enablers, that had no intestinal fortitude to stand up to the so often modern problem of calling what is wrong.... right. And what is right...wrong
GG
But thats..their problem. i respect your opinion and view, but I disagree. Aint America great?!?!
generalgrog wrote: And yes, those people were indeed harmed.. by the enablers, that had no intestinal fortitude to stand up to the so often modern problem of calling what is wrong.... right. And what is right...wrong.
That's a modern problem? Huh. Here's me thinking that, for example, it's historically a problem that people have called things "right" and "natural", like slavery, and racism, and bigotry, and intolerance, and the domination of women, that were in fact wrong, and evil.
In reality, overall we're making progress. We're growing up a bit as a species as the boundaries of our knowledge expand and push back the areas of darkness; of fear and ignorance. It wasn't all that long ago, for example, that folks made arguments that interracial couples shouldn't be allowed to adopt. Or that there were laws forbidding interreligious marriage.
If a person COULD be talked into thinking that they're gay, that's clear evidence that sexuality isn't as black and white as some folks claim. Real people exist on a spectrum of variations. Gradations of color or shades of grey. Attempting to shoehorn everyone into being black or white is dumb, harmful, and ignorant. If, as Ouze asked, one day you had to make a conscious decision to be heterosexual, that means you're somewhere in the middle. Me, I never had a choice in the matter. Dudes just don't appeal. So maybe it's easier for me to understand the transgender folks than you; I just know that I'm straight, and a dude. So if someone else knows, in their soul and their heart, that they're gay, or actually the opposite gender from their body's physical sex, that provokes sympathy in me;, rather than skepticism.
Gay, straight, slant drilling it doesn't really matter though does it? Everybody has to deal with the same problems in life, and none of us are perfect. Except dogs of course, and eagles, because birds of prey know they're cool.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
purplefood wrote: Big Brother thought police! Tricking people into thinking they're gay!
d-usa wrote: So many of us who usually spend most of our time in the OT disagreeing with each other are on the same page in this thread.
Almost makes me shed a tear...
I know, I've never seen so many people varying politically (conservatives, liberals, libertarians, social democrats, etc) agreeing on so much.
Well it's like... Ouze I think said, there's something for everyone here if you actually don't have your head shoved up your donkey cave. Equality is a pretty big deal for the average political affiliation.
What is the best measure now? In my sociology course we talked about how sexuality isn't as black and white as some might believe and that the barriers between homosexuality, heterosexuality and bisexuality can be quite fluid.
Errr... I'm spacing off the top of my head, I do know that Kinsey is considered not flexible enough in the modern setting. So for example how would you rate a man who's attracted to the female gender, to include preop transwomen?
KalashnikovMarine wrote: How exactly is it NOT the same as the "freak" post? How is anything you just said NOT a pile of ignorant horse gak? Treating human beings the way they deserve to be treated, with some actual freaking respect, isn't "PC group think" it's "being a decent freaking human being.
I would rather be honest with someone, then enable them.
(the following is sarcasm, for those who missed the other clues I left in the text for you...)
Good call Grog, the invisible sky giant who 'made everything' and is 'always watching to judge you' is no more real than Harvey the Rabbit, grow the feth up and live your life according to your own decisions and own willingness to be a tolerant or (as you've proven in this thread) intolerant person instead of doing things out of fear of this all-loving-yet-willing-to-condemn-you-to-eternal-suffering ghost man who is everywhere, your religion makes no more sense than a fortune cookie, thinking He-Man is real, or predicting the future using chicken entrails.
...There you go, how did that work out for you? I just couldn't stand by and enable you any further in your delusions and wanted to be honest with you, I'm sorry if that made me read like a gigantic fething douche, but hey, right is on my side, as far as I'm concerned. I'm sure you can feel me, right bro? Cos, that's how you roll too, you just said the same thing about this woman.
Or was that too subtle?
(sarcasm now disengaged...)
When a man has undergone gender reassignment surgery, he has become she, she is no longer a 'dood', dood... Western society recognizes this, some bureaucracies don't quite get it yet, being bureaucratic and all and taking time to change their forms and some ignorant or intolerant people or stupid people don't get it, for the reasons I just named. You don't get to scream blue murder every time someone offends your (very brittle) religious convictions in the OT (something over time I've seen you do waaaay too often) and then play the 'I speak it like it is, offense is other people's problem' bs when we're talking about people that you, for no good fething reason, seem to want to insult.
...And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.” John 8:7
You without sin then Grog? Cos last I checked, only God is without sin.
It does raise an interesting point.
Why are people allowed to be incredibly rude to transgendered people and yet others are not allowed to be rude concerning a religion...
It's probably about time the MODs locked this...
motyak wrote: I know, and the point he made was a very good one and needed to be made, but it could have been made without that bit.
edit: and I know it's silly to get put out by something someone says about religion on the internet, it's just that I normally like how MGS posts and agree with many of his points, which is why this one is so jarring I guess.
Well, he made the point that by judging some and calling members of a subgroup "freaks" and such you are judging the entire group the same way. People who struggle with the same issue of having a brain/body mismatch but have not done any surgery and are sitting on the computer reading this thread will feel that their condition makes them "freaks" as well even though they have not made any attempt at gender reasignment. They don't look like "freaks", but their condition makes them "freaks" that just need to be corrected according to some on here. Just like judging "freak" Christians who are offensive makes other Christians feel like they are judged as well.
His point was very well made I thought, even though I am in the "insulted" group of Christians.
Ha I reported the first of those 'abomination' posts as 'possibly the most insulting and horrific thing I've read on dakka in my time here'. They definitely can't be rude to them, I just didn't honestly know how to respond in the open without losing it.
This kowtowing to every single freak out there and then guilting the majority with political correctness bull crap is going to destroy western civilization.
Freak?
That's homophobia, buddy. You're about 1 post away from my ignore list.
I'll give you a chance to take it back, though.
I don't think that means what you think it means. I really don't give two craps how someone chooses to live their life. But don't expect me to kiss their butt for it and praise their 'alternate' lifestyle or tell them that I'm 'OK' with it.
And that is what really gets me pissed off, is that it's not good enough to 'tolerate' people of alternate lifestyles, now we are expected to celebrate their choices that we may or may not agree with or are held up as bigots/racists/whatever the flavor of the month term the left comes up with next.
azazel the cat wrote:
SickSix wrote:This kowtowing to every single freak out there and then guilting the majority with political correctness bull crap is going to destroy western civilization.
if this article were about a black man, would you have used the phrase "kowtowing to a n***** "? If it were about a homosexual, would you have used the phrase "kowtowing to a f***** "?
Please refrain from using slurs and derogatory, judgement-laded terms when describing transgendered people.
Ah yes, please, find your nearest elderly black person that lived through the civil rights movement and tell them how the LBGT plight is equal to the struggle of blacks in America. Tell me how that works out for you.
and I get your point d-usa, but how is the best way to fight the people bigoted against transgendered people by doing the same thing to another group? It was a fine point, it just didn't need the first paragraph.
Well, I can't speak out for MGS to tell you how serious he was with his post. But I think a dose of "walking in their shoes of being judged and being called out" can help. It's not the only answer though.
Sometimes, you just can't fix people that feel like they should fix people...
This kowtowing to every single freak out there and then guilting the majority with political correctness bull crap is going to destroy western civilization.
Freak?
That's homophobia, buddy. You're about 1 post away from my ignore list.
I'll give you a chance to take it back, though.
I don't think that means what you think it means. I really don't give two craps how someone chooses to live their life. But don't expect me to kiss their butt for it and praise their 'alternate' lifestyle or tell them that I'm 'OK' with it.
And that is what really gets me pissed off, is that it's not good enough to 'tolerate' people of alternate lifestyles, now we are expected to celebrate their choices that we may or may not agree with or are held up as bigots/racists/whatever the flavor of the month term the left comes up with next.
This kowtowing to every single freak out there and then guilting the majority with political correctness bull crap is going to destroy western civilization.
Freak?
That's homophobia, buddy. You're about 1 post away from my ignore list.
I'll give you a chance to take it back, though.
I don't think that means what you think it means. I really don't give two craps how someone chooses to live their life. But don't expect me to kiss their butt for it and praise their 'alternate' lifestyle or tell them that I'm 'OK' with it.
And that is what really gets me pissed off, is that it's not good enough to 'tolerate' people of alternate lifestyles, now we are expected to celebrate their choices that we may or may not agree with or are held up as bigots/racists/whatever the flavor of the month term the left comes up with next.
You aren't expected to do anything.
He isn't supposed to throw them a "Surprise, you're a girl" party and give them presents and a "You got new bitz!" card?
The first part of my post was demonstrative of being as asinine and repellent as General Grog had just been, only towards the thing he places highest in his life, his religion, as opposed to someone, like this lady, who had been battling with their identity their entire lives, suffered prejudice, depression, terrible self image and potentially (as many have) suicide.
To many people calling themselves 'Christian' and yet seem to possess not a shred of tolerance, compassion or empathy. As far as I am concerned, Christ and Bill & Ted basically all said 'be cool to one another'. So start being cool and not a hate monger with notions that you know better than the other guy what the creator of universes does or does not find offensive about a person who is not harming others and simple searching for ways to make themselves happier.
Matthew 7:1, read it, take it on, try living by it.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: The first part of my post was demonstrative of being as asinine and repellent as General Grog had just been, only towards the thing he places highest in his life, his religion, as opposed to someone, like this lady, who had been battling with their identity their entire lives, suffered prejudice, depression, terrible self image and potentially (as many have) suicide.
To many people calling themselves 'Christian' and yet seem to possess not a shred of tolerance, compassion or empathy. As far as I am concerned, Christ and Bill & Ted basically all said 'be cool to one another'. So start being cool and not a hate monger with notions that you know better than the other guy what the creator of universes does or does not find offensive about a person who is not harming others and simple searching for ways to make themselves happier.
Matthew 7:1, read it, take it on, try living by it.
Yup... I'm in that "Christian" bucket.
Plus, Bill & Ted are on my Pantheon list too!
Everyone needs to cool it. Like d said (and MGS alluded to), walk in their shoes for a day before passing judgement.
SickSix wrote: And that is what really gets me pissed off, is that it's not good enough to 'tolerate' people of alternate lifestyles, now we are expected to celebrate their choices that we may or may not agree with or are held up as bigots/racists/whatever the flavor of the month term the left comes up with next.
Nobody is demanding "celebration", unless you consider things like "put my chosen gender on my driver's license" to be a "celebration" rather than "stay out of other people's business".
azazel the cat wrote:Ah yes, please, find your nearest elderly black person that lived through the civil rights movement and tell them how the LBGT plight is equal to the struggle of blacks in America. Tell me how that works out for you.
Oh good, this classic "argument". Like it or not there IS a lot of similarity. Both groups have faced severe discrimination and outright hatred (and, often, murder), and eventually people who opposed LGBT rights will be looked at as unfavorably as the racists of the 1950s.
purplefood wrote:
You aren't expected to do anything.
If that were true, people wouldn't get attacked for voicing their dissenting opinions now would they? So we can at minimum establish that all those that don't agree with LBGT lifestyles are expected to keep their mouths shut and not participate in the conversation, or they suffer the punishment of being demonized.
d-usa wrote:
What is he supposed to do, just leave them alone?
Which is exactly what I do in practice. But god forbid I voice my differing opinion in public discourse on the internet!
purplefood wrote:
You aren't expected to do anything.
If that were true, people wouldn't get attacked for voicing their dissenting opinions now would they? So we can at minimum establish that all those that don't agree with LBGT lifestyles are expected to keep their mouths shut and not participate in the conversation, or they suffer the punishment of being demonized.
Cause you're hating on love man, not cool the LBGT just want to be treated like normal human beings why do you have to hate them? What did they do wrong?
purplefood wrote:
You aren't expected to do anything.
If that were true, people wouldn't get attacked for voicing their dissenting opinions now would they? So we can at minimum establish that all those that don't agree with LBGT lifestyles are expected to keep their mouths shut and not participate in the conversation, or they suffer the punishment of being demonized.
d-usa wrote:
What is he supposed to do, just leave them alone?
Which is exactly what I do in practice. But god forbid I voice my differing opinion in public discourse on the internet!
There's a big difference between 'I don't agree with their choice' and 'they are freaks for their choice'
purplefood wrote:
You aren't expected to do anything.
If that were true, people wouldn't get attacked for voicing their dissenting opinions now would they? So we can at minimum establish that all those that don't agree with LBGT lifestyles are expected to keep their mouths shut and not participate in the conversation, or they suffer the punishment of being demonized.
dissenting opinion<>prejudice against people based on their non-harmfully conducted lifestyle that you personally don't like, for reasons you've not mentioned yet.
You get attacked? Poor you, you understand that others with a similar viewpoint to yours go out and actually attack and have on many occasions killed people with LBGT 'lifestyles'.
d-usa wrote:
What is he supposed to do, just leave them alone?
Which is exactly what I do in practice. But god forbid I voice my differing opinion in public discourse on the internet!
And God forbid others call you out on that opinion. "I'm a special snowflake and I can call lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transsexuals and anyone else a freak but when others voice objection to that, I'll wail like an alleycat about the mean old internet picking on me!"
Quit portraying your bigotry as 'just an opposing opinion'.
People are allowed to disagree, hell they are allowed to disagree on religious grounds, but they aren't allowed to be rude and bigoted in doing so. You can say 'I don't agree with what you did (for whatever reason), but that doesn't make you less of a person', but you can't say 'that's heinous what you did to your body, you are now a freak'
purplefood wrote:
You aren't expected to do anything.
If that were true, people wouldn't get attacked for voicing their dissenting opinions now would they? So we can at minimum establish that all those that don't agree with LBGT lifestyles are expected to keep their mouths shut and not participate in the conversation, or they suffer the punishment of being demonized.
Cause you're hating on love man, not cool the LBGT just want to be treated like normal human beings why do you have to hate them? What did they do wrong?
I hope you are being sarcastic.
If not your statement is the PERFECT example of what I'm talking about. Suddenly having a different opinion = hate? I think you need to look up the definition of hate and then you can return to the conversation.
purplefood wrote:
You aren't expected to do anything.
If that were true, people wouldn't get attacked for voicing their dissenting opinions now would they? So we can at minimum establish that all those that don't agree with LBGT lifestyles are expected to keep their mouths shut and not participate in the conversation, or they suffer the punishment of being demonized.
Cause you're hating on love man, not cool the LBGT just want to be treated like normal human beings why do you have to hate them? What did they do wrong?
I hope you are being sarcastic.
If not your statement is the PERFECT example of what I'm talking about. Suddenly having a different opinion = hate? I think you need to look up the definition of hate and then you can return to the conversation.
You insulted the LGBT community by calling them freaks how is that not hateful? Now say you're sorry.
I just want to say, while I cross aisles and join hands with d-usa, some of the Canadians, MGS, etc fairly regularly as a libertarian who's really strong on the social half of that equation, you guys are making me agree with Peregrine a lot in this thread and that is just not cool.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: I just want to say, while I cross aisles and join hands with d-usa, some of the Canadians, MGS, etc fairly regularly as a libertarian who's really strong on the social half of that equation, you guys are making me agree with Peregrine a lot in this thread and that is just not cool.
Sigh. Do you really not understand how "freak" has a connotation beyond the literal dictionary definition? Please stop hiding behind the dictionary, if you're going to be blatantly offensive to people at least have the courage to take responsibility for your actions.
LOL, so if you said 2+2=5, that would a) have nothing to do with calling someone, in fact millions of people, a derogatory term, in a manner meant to demean them, and b) demonstrate for the rest of the class that you can't even defend your prejudice with anything amounting to logic or a reasoned argument.
As for your dictionary 'defense'.
Synonyms
abnormality, anomaly, monster, monstrosity
We can post the british dictionary and argue the slang meaning of a certain F** word for cigarettes, but that doesn't change the fact that it is hateful language.
Or we can talk about the old meaning of the swastika and how that makes people who are offended by it stupid...
d-usa wrote: We can post the british dictionary and argue the slang meaning of a certain F** word for cigarettes, but that doesn't change the fact that it is hateful language.
Or we can talk about the old meaning of the swastika and how that makes people who are offended by it stupid...
Labeling people makes it easy to dismiss them, it is easier than to give it serious thought.
A person has a right to lazy thinking, not recommended perhaps and <gasp> has consequences.
If you throw that opinion out there take your lumps and be happy of being "true" to yourself. Unless you were trolling and then being defensive just looks silly.
But no other citizen has any right to interfere with what a person does to themselves. (We will not talk further on meddling courts and politicians).
Think really hard before anyone says otherwise.
Self empowerment is harder to get settled than most would think. That is why so many people go crazy on gun control: they need a crutch to feel empowered enough to say "back-off".
A citizen has a right to civil disobedience when the rules do not make sense and are not just, by all bloody means: break them just do no harm to others. It usually as demonstrated, show to the world how stupid the situation is.
Political correctness is dead. Be decent to one another is what we got left.
I remember being asked by a friend once "Do you think I am gay?" and the best answer I could give was "You are able to love someone for who they are, rather than be prejudiced by what sex they are."
Peregrine wrote: Sigh. Do you really not understand how "freak" has a connotation beyond the literal dictionary definition? Please stop hiding behind the dictionary, if you're going to be blatantly offensive to people at least have the courage to take responsibility for your actions.
Why would you expect anything but cowardice from someone who attacks a subordinate group?
Peregrine wrote: Sigh. Do you really not understand how "freak" has a connotation beyond the literal dictionary definition? Please stop hiding behind the dictionary, if you're going to be blatantly offensive to people at least have the courage to take responsibility for your actions.
Why would you expect anything but cowardice from someone who attacks a subordinate group?
Nice job there Mr. Bigot.
I always find using the dictionary fun.
But you have all done a wonderful job proving my original point. Thanks.
Yes, I do think transgenders are freaks of nature. However, as I have said, and you bleeding heart narrow minded people keep missing, is that I really don't care
how people chose to live their lives as long as they don't infringe on me.
I'm a diehard social libertarian. That doesn't mean I don't think some people are freaks. That means I think under the eyes of the law/government/social compact I think they should be treated fairly as anyone else. That does not mean I have to be nice to them.
SickSix wrote: [I'm a diehard social libertarian. That doesn't mean I don't think some people are freaks. That means I think under the eyes of the law/government/social compact I think they should be treated fairly as anyone else. That does not mean I have to be nice to them.
No, it doesn't. But when you go around calling people freaks, you shouldn't complain when people tell you that's an obnoxious thing to do. Freedom of expression doesn't mean freedom from consequences. Some uses of freedom are still dumb.
That's what I was thinking too.. we are not a heavy twitter using place. and our population is not as dense as back east.
And too my fellow libertarians, and the haters. You can dislike people all you want, you can even call them names and wish bad things upon them. That is your right to do so in every day life in the USA, that is part of freedom. Off-topic Forum on a gaming website not so much, it is a privately held club open to the public, and they can dis-invite you.
As you said, you do not care, why do you keep coming back to this thread to continue to post about it?
Use your brain, and be tolerant as you claim to be. It is not hurting you any.
Wait, Utah is completely lacking in homophobic tweets? How does that work?
Also, queer isn't considered a homophobic term anymore. They took it back. It's the Q in LGBTQ.
I'm pretty sure queer can still be used as a homophobic slur that being said it is sometimes used non-derogatorily like in queer theory, queer (as in strange), etc it depends on the context.
SickSix wrote:This kowtowing to every single freak out there and then guilting the majority with political correctness bull crap is going to destroy western civilization.
if this article were about a black man, would you have used the phrase "kowtowing to a n***** "? If it were about a homosexual, would you have used the phrase "kowtowing to a f***** "?
Please refrain from using slurs and derogatory, judgement-laded terms when describing transgendered people.
Well his use of the word freak does actually fit the definition of freak according to the dictionary definition of freak which is "A thing or occurrence that is markedly unusual or irregular:"
Transgendered are something that is noticeably unusual.
Surely the point of a good quality transgender is that it isn't noticeably unusual.
purplefood wrote: It does raise an interesting point.
Why are people allowed to be incredibly rude to transgendered people and yet others are not allowed to be rude concerning a religion...
It's probably about time the MODs locked this...
Why is anyone allowed to be rude to anyone or anything? Why do special snowflakes get unfair protection?
I do not get why the same protection isn't applied to everyone fairly.
As was well-described earlier in the thread, even if we're talking about chromosomal or physical SEX (as opposed to gender, which is more fluid and has to do with identity and societal conventions), nature has a lot more variety than just male/female.
Its not the body that is the problem. Its the mind. A stay in a correctional institution would work wonders for it, as would developing new treatments which don't involve invasive surgery.
Putting the text below the photo might have more impact... Scroll past the hot girl, then BAM. Ye, bet you didn't realise she was trans. Although I bet allot of people wouldn't realise.
Mr Hyena wrote: Its not the body that is the problem. Its the mind. A stay in a correctional institution would work wonders for it, as would developing new treatments which don't involve invasive surgery.
I made two people happy with a single post then - I'm awesome!
My point is: Peregrine's post is just a perfect example of hypocrits at work. You feel offended when people do not happily embrace any sort of life style and claim that they are intolerant but at the same time, are unwilling to tolerate those people's opinions...which is a textbook definition of hypocrisy.
I am fine with them living how they want, it's their very own choice and if they want to get some boobs, sure, why not, as long as I'm not paying for it. It's their choice after all.
You cannot, however, force me to think that one should praise them for finding their "true gender", because I don't believe in that transgender stuff. They need psychological, not surgical help, and by happily praising their choice to go visit Dr. Boob, you automatically despite those who actively seek (and find!) psychological help with their issue.
Mr Hyena wrote: Its not the body that is the problem. Its the mind. A stay in a correctional institution would work wonders for it, as would developing new treatments which don't involve invasive surgery.
This is a really bad joke, right?
From a biological point of view, there is alot more at risk with invasive surgery. Its more ideal to prefer a treatment with avoids it, if at all possible (should be the same for any sort of non-life threatening condition). I can take a blood sample from anyone and discover their true sex. Of course, there are legitimate problems with the sex chromosomes, but they are abnormalities. Now if someone does not display this sort of deformation then...logically, its mental and not biological.
Assuming your looking at it from an unbiased point of view.
What is the best measure now? In my sociology course we talked about how sexuality isn't as black and white as some might believe and that the barriers between homosexuality, heterosexuality and bisexuality can be quite fluid.
Well, for one thing, the Kinsey Scale doesn't take into account asexuality or autoeroticism.
Mr Hyena wrote: Its not the body that is the problem. Its the mind. A stay in a correctional institution would work wonders for it, as would developing new treatments which don't involve invasive surgery.
This is a really bad joke, right?
From a biological point of view, there is alot more at risk with invasive surgery. Its more ideal to prefer a treatment with avoids it, if at all possible (should be the same for any sort of non-life threatening condition). I can take a blood sample from anyone and discover their true sex. Of course, there are legitimate problems with the sex chromosomes, but they are abnormalities. Now if someone does not display this sort of deformation then...logically, its mental and not biological.
Assuming your looking at it from an unbiased point of view.
One really funny thing about how the brain works, is that a lot of mental issues can stem from hormonal issues caused by one's biology.
I made two people happy with a single post then - I'm awesome!
My point is: Peregrine's post is just a perfect example of hypocrits at work. You feel offended when people do not happily embrace any sort of life style and claim that they are intolerant but at the same time, are unwilling to tolerate those people's opinions...which is a textbook definition of hypocrisy.
Being tolerant of the intolerant doesn't always work out that great though, sometimes the intolerant deserve getting lambasted. Also relativism doesn't work as it implies people, societies, etc can't be wrong as there's no absolute truth or validity despite there being plenty of evidence that they
I made two people happy with a single post then - I'm awesome!
My point is: Peregrine's post is just a perfect example of hypocrits at work. You feel offended when people do not happily embrace any sort of life style and claim that they are intolerant but at the same time, are unwilling to tolerate those people's opinions...which is a textbook definition of hypocrisy.
I am fine with them living how they want, it's their very own choice and if they want to get some boobs, sure, why not, as long as I'm not paying for it. It's their choice after all.
You cannot, however, force me to think that one should praise them for finding their "true gender", because I don't believe in that transgender stuff. They need psychological, not surgical help, and by happily praising their choice to go visit Dr. Boob, you automatically despite those who actively seek (and find!) psychological help with their issue.
How is that?
If I congratulate a batsman's performance in cricket, I am not despising people who prefer to play football.
One really funny thing about how the brain works, is that a lot of mental issues can stem from hormonal issues caused by one's biology.
Possibly, but chopping up the body shouldn't be the right way to fix that. Check the chromosomes for true sex, then issue hormone therapy to better align towards the correct (genetic) sex, Finish up with psychological counseling.
Being tolerant of the intolerant doesn't always work out that great though, sometimes the intolerant deserve getting lambasted. Also relativism doesn't work as it implies people, societies, etc can't be wrong as there's no absolute truth or validity.
Intolerance of intolerance only preaches and spreads hate. Those same people are just as big a hatemonger as those they hate.
What is the best measure now? In my sociology course we talked about how sexuality isn't as black and white as some might believe and that the barriers between homosexuality, heterosexuality and bisexuality can be quite fluid.
Well, for one thing, the Kinsey Scale doesn't take into account asexuality or autoeroticism.
Well there's debate whether asexuality is a form of sexuality also the scale has been updated a bit as you add an "X" for asexual, that being said you're right that it doesn't deal with auto-eroticism.
If I congratulate a batsman's performance in cricket, I am not despising people who prefer to play football.
The analogy doesn't fit imo. The thing is that "transgender" issues come up, very rarely, but they do exist, and in media and public belief, the right way is to just slap some boobs on and pretend you're a female (or vice versa). At the same time, what should those people think that do not want to follow that way and look for constructive aka psychological help? According to the general belief, they should perceive their way as wrong as "all other" (not the case, just perspective / subjective perception at that point) do sth. else.
One really funny thing about how the brain works, is that a lot of mental issues can stem from hormonal issues caused by one's biology.
Possibly, but chopping up the body shouldn't be the right way to fix that. Check the chromosomes for true sex, then issue hormone therapy to better align towards the correct (genetic) sex, Finish up with psychological counseling.
So, going by that logic, women with Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome should undergo psychological counseling, as they do have a Y chromosome.
One really funny thing about how the brain works, is that a lot of mental issues can stem from hormonal issues caused by one's biology.
Possibly, but chopping up the body shouldn't be the right way to fix that. Check the chromosomes for true sex, then issue hormone therapy to better align towards the correct (genetic) sex, Finish up with psychological counseling.
So, going by that logic, women with Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome should undergo psychological counseling, as they do have a Y chromosome.
Mr Hyena wrote: I can take a blood sample from anyone and discover their true sex. Of course, there are legitimate problems with the sex chromosomes, but they are abnormalities.
Appart from, thats not true. Biology is not a simple matter of chromosomes and DNA. As reserch is showing now it is the expression of these genes that matter, and the expression of genes is a matter of many many factors. In gender there is no black and white and no difinitive tests. Biology almost never gives black and white answers.
There are some that argue being gay is a matter of psycology, some biology. Personaly I say who gives a dam who you sleep with.
I can see the argument with trans people that it is alot of dangerous surgery to undergo when we don't know for sure the underlieing cause, but then so are many other forms of plastic surgery. Most reconstructive surgery is not vital, but just to make people feel better about there bodys. Burns victims for example, are at one end of the scale. They normaly have no need for the surgery. We still do boob jobs, vaginoplasty, nose jobs, face lifts etc.
Also, before undergoing sex change surgery people have to undergo a MASSIVE amount of psycological testing, counseling etc. It is not a matter of turn up at the hospital, go "I want tittys" or "I want a cock" and a few cuts and allot of cash later, bam. It is a very very long process with alot of safeguards, support, etc.
One really funny thing about how the brain works, is that a lot of mental issues can stem from hormonal issues caused by one's biology.
Possibly, but chopping up the body shouldn't be the right way to fix that. Check the chromosomes for true sex, then issue hormone therapy to better align towards the correct (genetic) sex, Finish up with psychological counseling.
So, going by that logic, women with Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome should undergo psychological counseling, as they do have a Y chromosome.
I don't see why not.
So despite the fact that the only exception a woman with CAIS may experience in her life is that she would not have a period and would be unable to have children, and despite the fact that outside of that, both physiologically and psychologically, they are clearly female, they should undergo psychological counseling for the sole purpose that they have a Y chromosome?
I have nothing against people actually changing their gender...I believe however surgery should be avoided at all costs if not life threatening (even if burn victims) unless there is a non-invasive treatment, which is why re-balancing the hormones is a much more noble goal than mutilation.
So despite the fact that the only exception a woman with CAIS may experience in her life is that she would not have a period and would be unable to have children, and despite the fact that outside of that, both physiologically and psychologically, they are clearly female, they should undergo psychological counseling for the sole purpose that they have a Y chromosome?
Anyone born with a abnormality should get psychological help to cope with it. It just obviously wouldn't be as a big a session as more serious conditions.
Mr Hyena wrote: I have nothing against people actually changing their gender...I believe however surgery should be avoided at all costs if not life threatening (even if burn victims) unless there is a non-invasive treatment, which is why re-balancing the hormones is a much more noble goal than mutilation.
So despite the fact that the only exception a woman with CAIS may experience in her life is that she would not have a period and would be unable to have children, and despite the fact that outside of that, both physiologically and psychologically, they are clearly female, they should undergo psychological counseling for the sole purpose that they have a Y chromosome?
Anyone born with a abnormality should get psychological help to cope with it. It just obviously wouldn't be as a big a session as more serious conditions.
The thing is, post natally, not a lot can be done through hormones to actually change one's orientation or identification.
Mr Hyena wrote: I have nothing against people actually changing their gender...I believe however surgery should be avoided at all costs if not life threatening (even if burn victims) unless there is a non-invasive treatment, which is why re-balancing the hormones is a much more noble goal than mutilation.
So despite the fact that the only exception a woman with CAIS may experience in her life is that she would not have a period and would be unable to have children, and despite the fact that outside of that, both physiologically and psychologically, they are clearly female, they should undergo psychological counseling for the sole purpose that they have a Y chromosome?
Anyone born with a abnormality should get psychological help to cope with it. It just obviously wouldn't be as a big a session as more serious conditions.
What is this.. I don't even...
You are aware that every human on this planet has some form of abnormality right? I'd better go drag myself to the shrink now because I was born with gakky feet.
I made two people happy with a single post then - I'm awesome!
My point is: Peregrine's post is just a perfect example of hypocrits at work. You feel offended when people do not happily embrace any sort of life style and claim that they are intolerant but at the same time, are unwilling to tolerate those people's opinions...which is a textbook definition of hypocrisy.
I am fine with them living how they want, it's their very own choice and if they want to get some boobs, sure, why not, as long as I'm not paying for it. It's their choice after all.
You cannot, however, force me to think that one should praise them for finding their "true gender", because I don't believe in that transgender stuff. They need psychological, not surgical help, and by happily praising their choice to go visit Dr. Boob, you automatically despite those who actively seek (and find!) psychological help with their issue.
Sigvatr...hypocrisy abounds when it to comes to this issue.
There are many people who want to make themselves feel like good people by accepting just about anything.
If I congratulate a batsman's performance in cricket, I am not despising people who prefer to play football.
The analogy doesn't fit imo. The thing is that "transgender" issues come up, very rarely, but they do exist, and in media and public belief, the right way is to just slap some boobs on and pretend you're a female (or vice versa). At the same time, what should those people think that do not want to follow that way and look for constructive aka psychological help? According to the general belief, they should perceive their way as wrong as "all other" (not the case, just perspective / subjective perception at that point) do sth. else.
You seem to have a very skewed and uneducated perception of how transition works, Gender Identity Disorder (or Gender Dyspohria as the upcoming DSM-V will refer to it) is a recognized medical condition and is treated as such. After intense psychological counseling, individuals suffering the condition are referred to an endocrinologist and started on hormone replacement therapy, this process takes a few years, and psych care is ongoing through out the procedure for transitioning men and women. This process can include a number of minor plastic surgeries as part of the process ranging from tracheal shaves, breast augmentation, mastectomies, facial feminization or masculization... it depends on the individual as much as anything else. At such a time as an individual can afford it and they are judged medically and psychologically ready, an individual can opt for sex reassignment surgery. After that some therapy will be ongoing but for the most part this disorder is "cured" as the individual's sex and gender are now in proper alignment.
I made two people happy with a single post then - I'm awesome!
My point is: Peregrine's post is just a perfect example of hypocrits at work. You feel offended when people do not happily embrace any sort of life style and claim that they are intolerant but at the same time, are unwilling to tolerate those people's opinions...which is a textbook definition of hypocrisy.
I am fine with them living how they want, it's their very own choice and if they want to get some boobs, sure, why not, as long as I'm not paying for it. It's their choice after all.
You cannot, however, force me to think that one should praise them for finding their "true gender", because I don't believe in that transgender stuff. They need psychological, not surgical help, and by happily praising their choice to go visit Dr. Boob, you automatically despite those who actively seek (and find!) psychological help with their issue.
Sigvatr...hypocrisy abounds when it to comes to this issue.
There are many people who want to make themselves feel like good people by accepting just about anything.
GG
So by that then, I take it you seek to make yourself feel like a good person by accepting no one that strays out of your very slender world view? If that is indeed the plan I must say well done!
If I congratulate a batsman's performance in cricket, I am not despising people who prefer to play football.
The analogy doesn't fit imo. The thing is that "transgender" issues come up, very rarely, but they do exist, and in media and public belief, the right way is to just slap some boobs on and pretend you're a female (or vice versa). At the same time, what should those people think that do not want to follow that way and look for constructive aka psychological help? According to the general belief, they should perceive their way as wrong as "all other" (not the case, just perspective / subjective perception at that point) do sth. else.
That's a straw man argument.
People suffering gender identity confusion have a number of means available for dealing with it. You are trying to say there is only one way, imposed by society, which is clearly wrong given how contentious the issue actually is.
Sigvatr...hypocrisy abounds when it to comes to this issue.
There are many people who want to make themselves feel like good people by accepting just about anything.
GG
Explain the hypocrisy sunshine.
Because I find someone who has for years come into the OT to bleat about how Christians are a persecuted minority in America and Christians need moar rights and oh, it's like the lions in the Colosseum all over again and won't someone think of the children! ad nauseum but who then jumps gleefully into a thread like this to, well, persecute a tiny minority of vulnerable people in society to be a giant gakking HYPOCRITE.
But I can't really find the hypocrisy in tolerant people getting angry when confronted with intolerant and insulting people.
Mr Hyena wrote: Telling people what to think is thought police though.
See there is your problem.
You keep on confusing "what I am thinking" with "how I am allowed to act towards others".
The important part is one affects the other. If you tell people what they can and can not act like, it will therefore affect how they feel they can think. This is ok if applied to everyone fairly. But it isn't. Thus we get special snowflake groups.
Children should be left to do whatever they want, and not given any education.
What makes your views any more right than anyone elses? Thats the problem. People should be tolerant of everyone's beliefs.
Mr Hyena wrote: Telling people what to think is thought police though.
See there is your problem.
You keep on confusing "what I am thinking" with "how I am allowed to act towards others".
The important part is one affects the other. If you tell people what they can and can not act like, it will therefore affect how they feel they can think. This is ok if applied to everyone fairly. But it isn't. Thus we get special snowflake groups.
Well, in that case you are a special snowflake as well.
Because I am thinking many things, but unlike you I know that I cannot just tell everyone what I think about you
Why are you posting on a forum whose rules you disagree with?
Because protesting is honestly stupid.
No, the stupid here is your argument. If you honestly believe that asking people to act with respect for others is "thought police", you probably don't have much of value to add to any discussion here nayway.
Mr Hyena wrote: If you tell people what they can and can not act like, it will therefore affect how they feel they can think. This is ok if applied to everyone fairly. But it isn't. Thus we get special snowflake groups.
I'm sorry, but that sounds JUST like every justification for homophobia, racism, sexism and dissability discrimination I have ever heard "Why should they be treated better than us..."
No, the stupid here is your argument. If you honestly believe that asking people to act with respect for others is "thought police", you probably don't have much of value to add to any discussion here nayway.
Except your not doing that. Your demanding respect for one group, while not giving any to the group your asking it from.
No, the stupid here is your argument. If you honestly believe that asking people to act with respect for others is "thought police", you probably don't have much of value to add to any discussion here nayway.
Except your not doing that. Your demanding respect for one group, while not giving any to the group your asking it from.
What? Who? How? The slight is entierly in your mind... Please (And I'm sure I should not be doing this...) do explain WHAT group is not being given respect? Unless you are talking about "people who are transphobic" as a group?
No, the stupid here is your argument. If you honestly believe that asking people to act with respect for others is "thought police", you probably don't have much of value to add to any discussion here nayway.
Except your not doing that. Your demanding respect for one group, while not giving any to the group your asking it from.
What? Who? How? The slight is entierly in your mind... Please (And I'm sure I should not be doing this...) do explain WHAT group is not being given respect? Unless you are talking about "people who are transphobic" as a group?
Yes, I am.
"I don't agree with what you said, but I'll defend your right to say it"
Is quite honestly an honorable thing. To say a groups views are taboo from discussion is silencing the opposition and that has never ended well for humanity, no matter how good the reason.
Hyena, you misunderstand the nature of free speech. You are free to voice your opinions, and of course, we are free to respond with our opinions of your opinions, and of you, for holding such opinions.
Your freedom of speech is only threatened if someone actually prevents you from speaking or if you face significant sanctions of some kind for speaking. You face neither, just normal disagreement.
As was well-described earlier in the thread, even if we're talking about chromosomal or physical SEX (as opposed to gender, which is more fluid and has to do with identity and societal conventions), nature has a lot more variety than just male/female.
Its not the body that is the problem. Its the mind. A stay in a correctional institution would work wonders for it, as would developing new treatments which don't involve invasive surgery.
And who are you to decide that their mind needs "correcting"?
Heres the thing; gender identity isn't something that just changes. It's like a rigid fluid (stay with the analogy for a while) tha scale is fairly fluid, with people being at any point between "normal" male and female, but that specific person's gender identity is fixed. They may not understand it (in the case of someone who identifies as a woman having been raised as a boy, it may take a long time to come to terms with their gender), but it isn't something you can just "wish better".
Attempting to deal with this stuff like homosexuality used to be treated "Hey guys, maybe if we used electroshock therapy they'll change orientation!" or "Maybe we can convince them that they're image of themselves is wrong! That won't leave any lasting psychological damage!" doesn't fix anything. We learned that from the (still occuring, but less stigmatised) LGB part of LGBT; people that advocate "praying away the gay" are largely ridiculed, and rightly so, so why should the same sort of "oh, if we just talk about it!" nonsense work here?
Also I just saw the first two sentences of your post. wow. That is completely wrong. To Trans* people, they were born with the wrong body. just because you think "oh, they've got these parts, so they must be this gender" doesn't change that in the slightest, and frankly the fact that you think that you can say "actually you're just a bit messed up, if we just talk about it we'll be able to turn you back to normal" to deal with these issues strikes me as both ignorant of them, and uncaring.
generalgrog wrote: For example look at some of the reactions in this thread... anyone who has an opinion that transgender/homsexuality is wrong is immediately labeled ignorant/backwards/or a bigot.
Thats classic "thought police" stuff right there.
GG
That's classic "Progress" stuff right there. Just because you think that Trans* people are some sort of abomination in the eyes of your lord doesn't mean that they are. Mark 12:31 and all that.
SickSix wrote: And that is what really gets me pissed off, is that it's not good enough to 'tolerate' people of alternate lifestyles, now we are expected to celebrate their choices that we may or may not agree with or are held up as bigots/racists/whatever the flavor of the month term the left comes up with next.
No you're not. You're expected to go about your business without being a dick. That's all.
Also, you may not have noticed, due your viewpoint being so narrow, but in this thread it's pretty much everyone condemning you and your position, no matter their political affiliation.
Sigvatr wrote: My point is: Peregrine's post is just a perfect example of hypocrits at work. You feel offended when people do not happily embrace any sort of life style and claim that they are intolerant but at the same time, are unwilling to tolerate those people's opinions...which is a textbook definition of hypocrisy.
I am fine with them living how they want, it's their very own choice and if they want to get some boobs, sure, why not, as long as I'm not paying for it. It's their choice after all.
You cannot, however, force me to think that one should praise them for finding their "true gender", because I don't believe in that transgender stuff. They need psychological, not surgical help, and by happily praising their choice to go visit Dr. Boob, you automatically despite those who actively seek (and find!) psychological help with their issue.
Except people here are tolerating your opinion. They're just also pointing out that it makes you seem rather ignorant. As I said earlier in the post, the issue here isn't their heads, it's their bodies and you stating that its their heads.
What would you do if someone had a magic wand and you woke up with a woman's body? Would you be perfectly fine with it? or would you be fairly put out? I reckon it would be the latter, and unless you are incredibly happy with modifying your own body, you'd probably want some way of changing back right? now imagine that, but rather than waking up in the moment and it happening instantly, that you gradually realise that you're in the wrong body over the course of years. That would suck, wouldn't it?
azazel the cat wrote: Also, queer isn't considered a homophobic term anymore. They took it back. It's the Q in LGBTQ.
I thought that the Q was meant to represent GenderQueer people? (I may be wrong on this)
generalgrog wrote: Sigvatr...hypocrisy abounds when it to comes to this issue.
There are many people who want to make themselves feel like good people by accepting just about anything.
GG
Accepting just about anything, apart from bigots who don't accept people for who they are because their imaginary freind (in my opinion) said so.
I can say that, because if you're allowed to be bigoted and hate on Trans* people, I can be bigoted and hate on bigoted religious people; it's like bigotception!
Ain't free speech grand?
Mr Hyena wrote: Telling people what to think is thought police though.
Not how to think, how to act.
As in, don't act like polite conversation's butthole.
Mr Hyena wrote: Except your not doing that. Your demanding respect for one group, while not giving any to the group your asking it from.
They are. They are patiently asking for your reasoning, rather than just hurling profanities at you like many people would.
And here's you being a hypocrit in a way, by demanding that they respect you more, whilst not respecting the people that they're defending.
I think that's all I've got. Me making an actual post rather than rebutting people's points would just be re-iterating myself.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Wow. I think that's my longest ever post.
Mr Hyena wrote: Telling people what to think is thought police though.
You're absolutely right, we should meet up, have a cup of tea and then I can stab you to death with a fork on a whim, cos rules are a drag!
Or... you could acknowledge that societies have constructed laws based around not devolving into that unpleasant recorded message scene in Event Horizon. One of the things societies do as they advance away from fearing that thunder is demons throwing their furniture about, or volcanic activity is the result of the dragons under the earth puking up after too many sugary treats or that 'the tides, you can't explain that!' etc, is that we afford greater tolerances to straying from what is considered 'the norm', with the provision that it does not harm others and won't pull the fabric of the society apart.
Men getting operations to turn them into women, or vice versa so they'll be happier is not, as was so utterly ludicrously stated earlier, 'the end of western civilization! It's just people deciding, after many years, that they are in the wrong bodies and are able to change this.
And whilst the surgery exists only recently, this 'phenomena' has existed in societies since records began, either met with the sort of derision and hate we've seen in this thread or with acceptance into a role, often as the 'third gender'.
purplefood wrote:
You aren't expected to do anything.
If that were true, people wouldn't get attacked for voicing their dissenting opinions now would they? So we can at minimum establish that all those that don't agree with LBGT lifestyles are expected to keep their mouths shut and not participate in the conversation, or they suffer the punishment of being demonized.
Cause you're hating on love man, not cool the LBGT just want to be treated like normal human beings why do you have to hate them? What did they do wrong?
I hope you are being sarcastic.
If not your statement is the PERFECT example of what I'm talking about. Suddenly having a different opinion = hate? I think you need to look up the definition of hate and then you can return to the conversation.
You called them freaks.
That's not a differing opinion. That's hate. You don't have to bake her a cake. You don't have to hold her hand and sing Kum Bah Ya. You don't even have to hold the door open for her at the DMV. You just have to be a decent person and not call her names.
But you can't see it. You couldn't take back calling her a freak. I gave you a shot, buddy. Which is more than you did for anyone you think is a "freak."
"I don't agree with what you said, but I'll defend your right to say it"
Is quite honestly an honorable thing. To say a groups views are taboo from discussion is silencing the opposition and that has never ended well for humanity, no matter how good the reason.
I see... Your trying to shut people down buy calling names...
I don't see that your views have been moderated, or that you have been banned. I don't see that the thread has been closed. Your using an argument for free and open discussion too:
1) make yourself look like the victim. People here have just as much right to say you are wrong as you do to say it, but your trying to shut them down by playing the victim. Well, that dosn't wash.
2) make anything you say acceptable by complaining it is free speach. The concept of defending someones right to say something is not about defending offensive words, but about defending views. You have every right to disagree with the concept of transexuality and homosexualtiy, if you disagree in a reasons and sensible way. This dose not include jumping in to a thread on a website and calling people freaks then getting upset when people call you out on that.
Please, do stop it. If you have something to say, then say it, but have some dam respect for others.
Rented Tritium wrote: I actually really like this thread. A bunch of people earned their way off my ignore list by being cool about this.
I like it and don't like it. I like the fact that people that really disagree on everything are on the same side. I dislike it because it's the first thread in forever that's genuinely made me angry, rather than just exhasperated.
Accepting just about anything, apart from bigots who don't accept people for who they are because their imaginary freind (in my opinion) said so.
I have to pull you up on this because this is not a god thing, but a bigot thing. People use religion as an excuse for all sorts of bigoty, just like many other reasons.
Rule number 1, love thy nabour. Anything else is secondary, and the bible has about as much to say on it as it dose about how women should not pray with a shaved head... "a woman brings shame on her head if she prays or prophesies bare-headed; it is as bad as if her head were shaved." All the bible has to say is "Men, be gay, just don't have sex", but then it also tells people not to eat meat on Fridays, not have sex outside marrage and to have as many children as they can. Strange how many homophobic "christians" much a takeaway on a Friday, have sex with there partner and have no children...
Personaly, as a bisexual christian, I don't think god gives a flying feth where I put my dick, as long as the other person is consenting and I am not cheating on someone.
I just wanted to post this as I think you should take every chance you can to dismiss myths and distance your beliefs from extremists who use your faith for wrong.
I am genuinely shocked at how some people have acted here.
Frazzled, Whembly, Kalashnikov, and others, whom I agree with pretty much nothing they post, I've been reading and agreeing and even laughing along with their postings. It is infuriating.
I agree with Rented Tritium in that a lot of posters have redeemed themselves in the view of other posters on this forum with their responses here.
Sadly, some have also continued to condemn themselves, but then 2 or 3 of those people are pretty much irredeemable, so it's not a surprise.
The classic 'Open Letter to Dr Laura' covers my thoughts on those who claim alternative consenting lifestyles are an affront to the creator of universes...
Dear Dr. Laura:
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law.
I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge
with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual
lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly
states it to be an abomination. ... End of debate.
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of
God's Law and how to follow them.
1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a
pleasing odour for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbours. They
claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus
21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her
period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I
tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.
4. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and
female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A
friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not
Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
5. I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2.
The passage clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated
to kill him myself?
6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an
abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I
don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?
7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a
defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my
vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair
around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27.
How should they die?
9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me
unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different
crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two
different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse
and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of
getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we
just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people
who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable
expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help.
Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
Ahtman wrote: I would agree, but I saw a guy congratulate the owners of a restaurant for taking all the wait staffs tips for themselves, and that it would encourage the waiters to work harder, and then thanked god for all his glory.
I decided to look it up again to get the exact quote: I saw the show and I like the way the do not give the tips to the help, because that will help them to pull themselves up by their bootstraps!! With God's love anything is possible!
I saw that, but I was under the impression that whoever wrote it was doing some trollception.
