'luci Reports to Ms Persson's Office for Scolding and Correction

[lissener]

Just this, for the moment, because this may be the nub.

If you came to believe that a....well, lets call it a stealth approach, for want of better (I am a stealth Boomer...)...that a stealth approach would achieve your ends soonest of any conceivable approach...

Would you advance that opinion, even if it earned you nothing but contempt and calumny from those who's opinion you trusted and whose friendship you most cherished?

If your answer is yes, then you are my true comerado, and I'm proud to be on the same side. Next to that, what you think of me vanishes to insignificance.
. . . and you don't see how this--Machiavellian, ends-justifies-means, dishonesty-is-OK-if-it-wins-the-election--this form of political thought might lead some of us to suggest that you're a liberal in name only, and a conservative at heart?

[Miller]

Just this, for the moment, because this may be the nub.

If you came to believe that a....well, lets call it a stealth approach, for want of better (I am a stealth Boomer...)...that a stealth approach would achieve your ends soonest of any conceivable approach...

Would you advance that opinion, even if it earned you nothing but contempt and calumny from those who's opinion you trusted and whose friendship you most cherished?

If your answer is yes, then you are my true comerado, and I'm proud to be on the same side. Next to that, what you think of me vanishes to insignificance.

As a generality, yes, I'd support any tactic that would most quickly and surely secure equal rights for everyone. However, such a goal is fundamentally at odds with the entire concept of a "stealth tactic." The only way to change someone's opinion about a topic is to argue the merits of that topic. How can you possibly win equal rights for transfolk without ever arguing that transfolk deserve equal rights? You've presented a logical impossibility.

I assume you're trying to suggest that, if we just focused on gay rights, and we won that, magically transfolk would get equal rights, too. But it doesn't work like that. There are issues (access to medical care is a big one) that are unique to the trans-rights movement. Winning equal rights for gays would not guarantee equal rights for transexuals. Plus, as much as we might like to pretend otherwise, the anti-rights movement is not made up entirely of idiots. If trans rights is a stumbling block to the acceptance of homosexuality, you can expect it to be used at every opportunity by those who are opposed to the acceptance of homosexuality. What do we do then? If the general public is so terriefied of transexuals, what do we do when we advocate some right or protection favorable to gays, and the other side points out that it would also be favorable to trans? There are only two responses I can see to such a challenge: either argue for an exception to whatever right we are seeking that will exclude trans people from that right, or turn into their fire and argue that trans people deserve that right every bit as much as everyone else.

I'm not one to put ideology above pragmatism, but the pragmatic approach to the gay rights issue is one of broad inclusion. Your hypothetical here has absolutely no real-world value. It's meaningless "what if" twaddle.

[xenophon41]

originally posted by Miller:

I'm not one to put ideology above pragmatism, but the pragmatic approach to the gay rights issue is one of broad inclusion. Your hypothetical here has absolutely no real-world value.

(Emphasis added.)

Thank you for expressing that so well.

[elucidator]

Two reasons. Number one, this is not your movement (despite your calling it that earlier in this thread....
Oh, that's a dandy plan! Alienate your allies at the earliest opportunity. Yeah, that'll work!

"To heck with the Shawnee and the Sioux, we're the Cheyenne, we can kick Custer's ass all by ourselves!"

And besides which, how is this your decision? You Chairman of the Central Committee?

And number two, and more important, Miller wasn't calling for people to be excluded from the fight for equal rights because they aren't palatable enough to middle America..

Seems not to matter how many times I say it ain't so, you know my mind better than I do. Rather a remarkable assertion. don't you think? Since I been living here damn near 60 years and you can only see the porch from the street?

Perhaps more to the point, the struggle is not to free ourselves from America, but to free America from herself. All, or none, for we are one. America can be the light of the world, if we can stop squabbling amongst ourselves like retarded chickens. I think that's a committment worthy of living for. What do you think?

...Really? Ya mean it? The opinions of actual gay people are as relevant as those of old straight guys whose views haven't changed since they were in college? Honest?...
Yeah. Honest. Without the layer of sarcasm you seem to need so desperately. And, no, for the most part, my views haven't changed that much since college. Except that I now think Hermann Hesse was kind of a dork. I don't understand why he felt it necessary that all of his heroes had long eyelashes.

...I sure wouldn't. The craven idea that gay people only deserve equal rights when we are completely nonthreatening is simply repulsive, and it shows how much of a friend you actually are to the gay rights movement....
Criminy, this is more and more like Classic Commie Comics Menshivik/Bolshevik. The Bolshies won, the Revolution was a success, the only thing lost was the cause. No matter, I don't need your permission any more than I need the Rev. Felcher. I've probably been at this longer than you've been alive, teach your grandmother to suck eggs. And keep this proverb in mind: young men think old men are fools, old men remember that young men are fools.

...Our commitment is for equal rights....
"Our"? Again, you speak for all? Have you some sort of Certificate?

...but the idea that you're a liberal is absolutely laughable. You might have all the lefty stances on political issues but you're no different from anyone on the Religious Right when you decide that anything that makes you uncomfortable isn't real and that minorities only deserve equal rights when they're nice and not scary.
Again, you claim to know me better than I know myself. Towering Inferno of Snotty Arrogance. I can barely remember being that insufferably self-righteous! Good luck with that.

Ah, youth! Thank God its over!

Was it H. Rapp Brown who called MLK an "Uncle Tom"? Think he was right?

[lissener]

elucidator's "stealth" argument puts me in mind of the classic Flannery O'Connor "voice of the devil." The voice that doesn't outright say, "Come on, commit evil." Instead, it's more seductive; it sounds good. But its real purpose is to tempt you give up the struggle. "Put down the picket sign. You might get a splinter. Here, sit in this comfy chair instead. Have a bon bon. Someone else will fight your fight for you."

His argument is entirely self-serving, like the "go slow" arguments of the Jim Crow South establishment. And it's dishonest: the only possible result of such stealth and caution is eventual apathy and complacency. That's the actual goal of false progressives like elucidator: to "tempt" real progressives, from within their ranks, as it were, to grow complacent and allow the status quo to remain.


It's possible, of course, that he doesn't realize this; that he's simply a victim of another, more-effective, hippy-whisperer. But however progressive he may have been back in the day, he's a tame hippy now.

[elucidator]

Xeno, sorry I ignored your points, but in the midst of this shit, it slipped. Shouldn't have, but did. And, goddamit, knock off the lurking! You got shit to say and I for one want to hear it.

[Excalibre]

Oh, that's a dandy plan! Alienate your allies at the earliest opportunity. Yeah, that'll work!
I see no sign that you're an ally. The fact that you keep telling us queers that we actually should cast off our tranny allies shows something about whether you're really an ally or not.


And besides which, how is this your decision? You Chairman of the Central Committee?
It's my movement. Obviously different queers will disagree on this but, frankly, my opinions about queer rights come from the experience of being queer, while you are on the outside and watching. You might have insightful things to say (I'll let you know if I spot any) but this fundamentally is not your movement. I appreciate straight people who support equal rights for queers; I don't think you have the right to tell us how we should seek them, though. (Note also that Miller, lissener, and I are all queer - and note that the folks agreeing with you are not; this should tell you something about how much you really can understand the queer movement from the outside.)


Seems not to matter how many times I say it ain't so, you know my mind better than I do. Rather a remarkable assertion. don't you think? Since I been living here damn near 60 years and you can only see the porch from the street?
I only go from your words. Since you've suggested, opined, speculated, and advised all through this thread that the gay rights movement should not align ourselves with transsexual people, I can only assume that that's what you think. If you don't think that we should isolate trans people from our movement, you might consider not saying so quite so often. I don't think you have any right to suggest that I'm contradicting your statements when I sum them up that way.


Perhaps more to the point, the struggle is not to free ourselves from America, but to free America from herself. All, or none, for we are one. America can be the light of the world, if we can stop squabbling amongst ourselves like retarded chickens. I think that's a committment worthy of living for. What do you think?
I think you need to quit the reefer and perhaps your head will become a tad clearer. Seriously, was the above actually an attempt to communicate something, or was it simply babbling?


Yeah. Honest. Without the layer of sarcasm you seem to need so desperately. And, no, for the most part, my views haven't changed that much since college. Except that I now think Hermann Hesse was kind of a dork. I don't understand why he felt it necessary that all of his heroes had long eyelashes.
And the fact is that the world has changed in that time. Young liberals become old, comfortable conservatives if they stop changing while the world continues to turn. If that's what you are, then that's what you are.


Criminy, this is more and more like Classic Commie Comics Menshivik/Bolshevik. The Bolshies won, the Revolution was a success, the only thing lost was the cause. No matter, I don't need your permission any more than I need the Rev. Felcher. I've probably been at this longer than you've been alive, teach your grandmother to suck eggs. And keep this proverb in mind: young men think old men are fools, old men remember that young men are fools.
Let's sum up: various people make arguments. People bring in citations. You respond by saying that successful rebuttals of your points are "dumb". Because, in your mind, any argument that could lead you to reconsider your views is naturally dumb - your views are already correct! That, or you just start babbling inanely.


...Our commitment is for equal rights...."Our"? Again, you speak for all? Have you some sort of Certificate?
Yes, 'luci, our commitment is for equal rights. Anyone who is not commited to equal rights is not a part of our movement. I can speak for all because any gay rights activist will agree that we are seeking equal rights.

I can't imagine what possible problem you have with this statement, but it again goes to show that you are not on the same page as the gay rights movement. Do you actually disagree with the above - you think we shouldn't be fighting for equal rights?


Again, you claim to know me better than I know myself. Towering Inferno of Snotty Arrogance. I can barely remember being that insufferably self-righteous! Good luck with that.
And that's it, isn't it? 'luci can't argue, so he insults.

If you think it's arrogant to read your words and respond to them as such, then you probably think I'm awfully arrogant. Since you have said over and over that you don't think the gay rights movement should concern itself with the situation of transsexuals precisely because they're scary, then an absolutely apt summation of your argument is "minorities only deserve equal rights when they're nice and not scary." If you don't like the implications of what you've been saying, then why not reconsider what you've been saying rather than getting mad at people for responding to your words at face value?

[Helen's Eidolon]

After all of this, I have to admit I'm still not quite sure I understand your reasoning. What is it that makes gay people worthy of fighting for, but not transgendered/transsexual people?

[elucidator]

Well, if all three of you are of one mind, then, you must be right! Couldn't be simpler. And it may be fashionable to use the term "queer" but I ain't about to start now. Nope.

And just so you know, there hardly were any "hippys". The media pretty much made it up out of a few scattered joyous weirdos, by the time the rest of us got there, it was already gone. You want some "hippy"? Check out Steven Gaskin (sp?). Now there was a hippy, bless his heart!

But since this is pretty much down to a conversation about what an asshole I may or may not be, its getting a bit boring. I'm sure you have better things to do. I'll check in if anyone has anything substantial to say, but this is a bit redundant. And besides, it harshes my buzz, dude.

[elucidator]

After all of this, I have to admit I'm still not quite sure I understand your reasoning. What is it that makes gay people worthy of fighting for, but not transgendered/transsexual people?
[groan]

Lucy said to Charlie Brown: "Well, you win some and you lose some"

And Charlie said: "That would be nice."

[lissener]

After all of this, I have to admit I'm still not quite sure I understand your reasoning. What is it that makes gay people worthy of fighting for, but not transgendered/transsexual people?
Because teh gays have been grandfathered into the free-love movement--the gay rights era began in 1968, the Summe of Love. The whole trans thing didn't enter elucidator's consciousness until much later in life, when his squick boundaries had hardened with age.

[Miller]

Look, elucidator, when you say the gay rights movement would be better served if they ignored the issue of trans rights, it's really, really, really hard to read that as anything other than, "Trans rights aren't important." The fact that so many people have so consistently read your posts as advocating this ought to, at the very least, be a big fuckin' clue that you have not been communicating clearly in this thread.

[Helen's Eidolon]

Maybe I'm naive and idealistic, but I do think he must have some reason (valid or, more likely, not) other than squick.

[kaylasdad99]

Apropos of nothing, I suppose, but I have this persistent picture in my head of Messrs Shodan, Martin Hyde, and Clothahump, along with Mlle Carol Stream sitting around in a chat room somewhere, reading this thread, noshing on popcorn and stupid food, and cheering their good fortune at the spectacle we're presenting.

FWIW, I believe luci is being somewhat pigheaded in his continued insistence that nothing in his OP made him a legitimate target for criticism from other progressive-minded Dopers. Nonetheless, I really think that assertions that this single facet of disagreement disqualify him from claiming the mantle of progressive, and a sincere supporter of and fighter for gay rights, are uncalled for, OTT, unsupported, and ultimately counterproductive.

Reminds me of something Will Rogers once said.

elucidator, if it's not too much trouble, I'd be grateful for any comments you'd care to share in response to this post of mine, from page 1. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7847979&postcount=48) I do understand that the conversation by now has migrated somewhat afield from the main idea presented, but it would be nice to have your thoughts.

I do hope that cooler heads will have prevailed by tomorrow.

[John Mace]

Look, elucidator, when you say the gay rights movement would be better served if they ignored the issue of trans rights, it's really, really, really hard to read that as anything other than, "Trans rights aren't important." The fact that so many people have so consistently read your posts as advocating this ought to, at the very least, be a big fuckin' clue that you have not been communicating clearly in this thread.
Just out of curiosity... Aren't "trans rights" in some ways more pallatable to the general populace than gay rights are? If a man undergoes a sex change operation, "he" becomes a she legally and can, for example, marry a man in most states. No? The big bad conservative government doesn't smack her on the head and say: Nope, you're still a man and so you can't marry another man. I know this varies by state, but IIRC, most states are cool with it.

[elucidator]

Sorry, Kaylasdad. Like I said, I ignored some stuff I shouldn't have talking to these two-a-nickel revolutionaries. Bet The Man is quaking in his boots, knowing these bad asses are on the move.

Maybe I read you wrong, but you seem to be suggesting that you think I was in favor of lobotomizing "trannys" (I always thought that meant transmissions, like a Hurst Tranny on a GTO, but hey....)

Not a bit of it, and I really should have cleared that up sooner. I was referring to lobotomy as a failed technique, something that seemed good at the time, but ultimately...not so much. Nowadays, we just trank 'em till they drool, but at least that can be reversed. Not saying I blame them, mind you, best of intentions, and all that. Similar to Freudian psychotherapy, oodles and gobs of learned papers, academic studies. Nowadays, start talking Id and Ego, people wonder what crypt you crawled out of. Goddess alone knows how many poor schmucks talked themselves silly about their potty training and never felt any better. (In high school, I had some therapy, and all he did was ask be embarassing questions until the weren't embarassing any more. God bless him, Mr. Weinstein! He also wrote a letter to my draft board and suggested that giving me a gun was not the best idea...)

And recovered memories, for another. Now we realise, a total crock. So, who's to say this surgery isn't another of these? Not me, surely. Given the cites above, I am somewhat reassured on this, but not wholly convinced. If it works, and gives relief, great! But if it doesn't, there's a heckuva price to pay. Not convinced. Maybe stubborn, maybe cautious, hell, I don't know, you'll have to ask the snot-nose punks who know my mind better than I do. And need we even mention the wonder-drug, thalidomide?

Just sayin', it wouldn't be the first time.

Does that answer?

[Miller]

Just out of curiosity... Aren't "trans rights" in some ways more pallatable to the general populace than gay rights are? If a man undergoes a sex change operation, "he" becomes a she legally and can, for example, marry a man in most states. No? The big bad conservative government doesn't smack her on the head and say: Nope, you're still a man and so you can't marry another man. I know this varies by state, but IIRC, most states are cool with it.

I'm not sure how many states legally recognize people who have changed their gender. I suspect most states refuse to alter a person's gender of record, but that could just be my pesimism talking. While I wouldn't go so far as to say that trans rights are more palatable in today's political climate, I think one could argue that the acceptance of transexualism requires a less radical paradigm shift than the acceptance of homosexuality, which might, in the long term, lead to sooner acceptance of transexuality than of homosexuality.

However, it is worth noting that transexuals who identify as homosexual after they transition have one major advantage over cisgendered homosexuals: they can legally get married in any state in the Union. It's one of those wonderful ironies that results so often from bigoted policies. A state that refuses to recognize a man who has transitioned into a woman is legally bound to allow that woman to marry another woman - because legally, one of the women is still a man. It's a bizarre instance of two wrongs actually making a right, for a change.

[elucidator]

Interesting chink in the armor, that. I wonder if there might be an advantage in forcing them to define "man" and "woman", having defined marriage as between a man and a woman. Might not amount to much, but would be a hoot to watch.

[John Mace]

I just checked wikipedia, and it didn't have a state-by-state breakdown, but it did say several states are OK with the M <-> F thing wrt marriage. Since gays can currently marry only in MA, I think it's safe to say that when we're talking about marriage rights, the popluace is more receptive to trannies than to gays.

[susan]

Good source for legal facts and interpretations:
Transgender Law and Policy Institute (http://transgenderlaw.org/)

I'm not sure how many states legally recognize people who have changed their gender.

From the source cited above; bolding mine:
The vast majority of states have laws or administrative policies allowing a transsexual person to change the sex designation on his or her birth certificate. States with statutes allowing a transsexual person who has undergone sex-reassignment to change his or her birth certificate include AZ, CA, CO, GE, HI, IL, IA, LA, MA, MD, MI, NC, NE, NJ, NM, OR, UT, and WI. Others have administrative policies to the same effect. This is important, because by allowing birth certificate changes, a state is acknowledging that changing one's sex is legally possible.[42] Courts in Texas and Kansas have rejected the argument that obtaining a new birth certificate is sufficient to establish one’s legal sex for the purpose of marriage.[43] In other states, however, it is likely that courts will hold that providing a transsexual person with a new birth certificate establishes the person’s legal sex for all purposes, including marriage.

However, it is worth noting that transexuals who identify as homosexual after they transition have one major advantage over cisgendered homosexuals: they can legally get married in any state in the Union. It's one of those wonderful ironies that results so often from bigoted policies. A state that refuses to recognize a man who has transitioned into a woman is legally bound to allow that woman to marry another woman - because legally, one of the women is still a man.Bolding mine. If the state recognizes the sex reassignment, then that male-to-female person may not marry a woman. You are correct about states that do not recognize the reassignment. Here's an example from the source cited:
Only a handful of courts have ruled on the validity of a marriage entered into after a transsexual person has undergone sex-reassignment. At least two courts have recognized the individual’s reassigned sex for the purpose of marriage.[38] In contrast, a few courts have ruled that, for purposes of marriage, a person’s legal sex is irrevocably determined at birth.


It is not clear that the state can dissolve an existing, previously "heterosexual" marriage on the basis of SRS. From the source given above:

1] Transsexual Transition within an Existing Marriage.

What happens to the validity of an existing marriage when one of the spouses undergoes sex-reassignment? There are no published decisions on this issue. So long as both spouses want to stay in the marriage and continue to live as a married couple, many couples in this situation have avoided legal problems, in large part because there are relatively few situations in which anyone other than one of the spouses has legal standing to challenge the validity of a marriage. Legal problems may arise when one spouse dies and the other attempts to collect survivorship benefits or to claim inheritance or other tax benefits that are restricted to married couples. Alternatively, an employer or health insurance company may challenge the validity of the marriage in the context of trying to exclude the spouse from an employer-provided health plan. Under longstanding legal principles, the validity of a marriage is determined at the time the marriage is created; moreover, once a valid marriage exists, there is nothing other than death or divorce that can dissolve it. These principles support the view that a marriage in which one of the spouses undergoes sex-reassignment continues to be valid.

Hope this information, and cite, are useful for this thread.

[kimera]

Just a note: SRS has been done for centuries. Instead of making vaginas, the early surgeons just removed the penis and testicles. This operation had a very high success rate although I can not find my book that detailed this practice to give you the exact numbers. Early mtf transsexuals could also drink pregnant horse urine to obtain HRT in ancient times. So it's not like this surgery is something new. Also, most people who are unsatisfied with their SRS had botched surgeries. Since SRS is not covered by many insurance agencies, a lot of women to go thailand or mexico. I've seen pictures of some of these screw ups and it's not pretty.

[elucidator]

Wouldn't you love to go door to door polling that question?

[Miller]

Wow, that really surprises me! Excellent news.

[Miller]

Erm, that was in reference to Shoshana's post, not kimera's post about botched Mexican SRS.

[elucidator]

Just a note: SRS has been done for centuries. Instead of making vaginas, the early surgeons just removed the penis and testicles..
You sure you're not talking about the procedures for creating eunuchs?

[John Mace]

Wouldn't you love to go door to door polling that question?
Were you asking me? If you were, I was thinking the same thing:

Who would you rather have as your 3rd grade son's teacher, a gay person or a transsexual?

Are those the only choices? :eek:

[Frank]

I'll check in if anyone has anything substantial to say, but this is a bit redundant. And besides, it harshes my buzz, dude.
You appear to have accepted matt_mcl's posts as substantial, yet you have not responded to them.

[elucidator]

Don't really see the need, he presents cites as facts, I accept that they are. Or, more to the point, they represent the state of research as it stands. To my mind, they qualify as evidence but not proof. I don't really think there will be any proof, except time.

Besides, I didn't take Matts posts as argument, so much as information. Pretty much trust him on sources, always seemed like a straight shooter.

[Miller]

Don't really see the need, he presents cites as facts, I accept that they are. Or, more to the point, they represent the state of research as it stands. To my mind, they qualify as evidence but not proof. I don't really think there will be any proof, except time.

Besides, I didn't take Matts posts as argument, so much as information. Pretty much trust him on sources, always seemed like a straight shooter.

It's been more than fifty years since Christine Jorgensen received the first succesful modern sex change operation. How much more time do you need?

[elucidator]

I'm all done today talking to people who treat me like shit.

[TVeblen]

Dio, you should be shot in the knees. Not fatally, just so it's really painful. Christ on a crutch, you're a human boil.

Out of bounds, Ensign E. Get riled up all you want but stop it short of wishing physical harm on another poster. This is a warning. Do not do it again.

TVeblen

[Jackmannii]

And need we even mention the wonder-drug, thalidomide?

Just sayin', it wouldn't be the first time.

Does that answer?Nope, it's just more of the same illogical argumentation you've been employing.

Thalidomide was prescribed in Europe on the basis of inadequate research and problems were ignored early on. When the F.D.A. in this country turned down the drugmaker's application (and thus saved perhaps thousands of American babies from deformity), it wasn't because scientists said "Oooo, thalidomide sounds icky! What do people need sedatives for? I don't believe in it." The chief F.D.A. investigator (Dr. Frances Kelsey) relied on good science. Anyone who stifles his opinion for fear of disapproval is a moral coward.Anyone who refuses to consider evidence and denies the legitimacy of a minority group based on personal distaste is a fossil with a bigoted outlook.

You're not standing on principle, you've just dug in your heels because you can't admit your approach to this subject is wrong.

[Weird With Words]

Keerist! This thing is still fucking GOING? I really thought this would've resolved itself by now, or at least that everyone would've become so mutually frustrated it would've died a sudden death, lost in a sea of rolling eyes.

Excalibre,
"The tactics end intentions of the whole would be better served by focusing on the largest demographic therein for starters. And it's not an issue of how 'gay' people 'look', it's what image comes to the mind of Joe Six-Pack* when he thinks 'gay'. For this reason, it best serves the purpose of the GLBTM for Joe Six-Pack to see little, normal-looking, darling old ladies holding hands and smiling pleasently while they wait hopeful epxressions to get married. THAT will resonate." is not the same as saying "You don't deserve any rights unless you sit down, speak when spoken to, and dress normal like a good little hetero-looking-queer. And TGs don't deserve any rights whatsoever, cuz they're funny looking."

As far as Niccolo Machiavelli is concerned, are you using his name in reference to the superiority of a republic over a principality? The strength of a tripartite structure? Our need for checks and balances in governance? Or are you using it in the strictly perjoritive sense of "the ends justify the means, no matter what the means"?

Any of the former would be valid, as I've known my dad to be generally suspicious of untethered power. The latter, however, is right out. Saying "there are better means to this end" is not remotely similiar to saying "the end justifies the means".


Oh yeah, and in reviewing the thread, it doesn't appear he ever thought the "Will & Grace" character was gay. He posed it as a sophomoric question. "If trangendered is X, wouldn't Z also be considered transgendered?"




*son of Tom Six and Wendy Pack...

[Miller]

I'm all done today talking to people who treat me like shit.

Jesus. How is it that my side of the argument is the one that got labeled "oversensitive?"

[Diogenes the Cynic]

The problem with Diogenes is that he views reality as something constructed out of ideology.
Of all the things people have ever said about me on this board, this has to be the most off the mark. It's also one of the most ironic since it comes from someone who is trying to argue precisely for an ideological definition of gender over a physical one and then seeking to demonize anyone who doesn't fall in line to recognize your purely ideological definition.

The biological reality is that sex is all about the Xs and the Ys. If you're biologically a male, you're a male. The rest is just so much precious, ivory tower, socio-political bullshit. If you really want to help your tranny brothers and sisters (or is that sisters and brothers?) then you'd be better served by toning down the shrieking, self-righteous bullying of people who aren't standing in your way. Fighting for civil rights is not about browbeating everybody into liking you. I know for a fact that there were people who supported the civil rights movement of the 60's who never really believed that blacks were equal to whites but that they still shouldn't be treated any differently (some of them were related to me). There are people who think that homosexuality is a sin but that the law has no business interfering with it. Not all of your allies are going to love you or agree with you for the same reasons or perceive the issues the same way you do. Nonetheless, no movement can suceed without those people and nothing is gained by screaming at them. Not everybody who supports TG rights is necessarily going to buy that it's a.) a real condition (which they'd be wrong about) or b.) that there can't be a better way to treat gender dysmorphia than by chopping off perfectly healthy body parts. You can accept those people as enemies of your enemy and get somewhere or you can wait around for everybody to achieve your perfect level of insight and righteousness and turn people off who might otherwise want to help you.

It's not about getting everybody to agree with you, it's about getting people who don't agree with you to go along with you. The more any movement attempts to purify itself ideologically, the more doomed it's going to become.

[elucidator]

I hasten to note you seem to have picked the example you can refute, or at least think you can. What about the rest?

They rest of it amounts to the same tired insults already offered. Pass.

[Weird With Words]

Well, I've never actually been called a bigot before, but imagine it would make me a bit touchy too. Especially if, at least in my own view, I'd been quite sincerely and even actively the opposite for upward of 40 years.

I can, however, think of plenty times I've been insulted in some way that caused my face to get red and my brain to shut off, making any further attempts at rational discussion futile. That's not called being ignorant or bigoted, it's called being human.

[elucidator]

Ooopsy. Last for Jack, not DtC or the Err Apparent

[Weird With Words]

Jesus. How is it that my side of the argument is the one that got labeled "oversensitive?"

Well, I've never actually been called a bigot before, but imagine it would make me a bit touchy too. Especially if, at least in my own view, I'd been quite sincerely and even actively the opposite for upward of 40 years.

I can, however, think of plenty times I've been insulted in some way that caused my face to get red and my brain to shut off, making any further attempts at rational discussion futile. That's not called being ignorant or bigoted, it's called being human.

[Aeschines]

I'm wearing ladies' panties right now. Ladies' panties!

[Weird With Words]

Jesus, now it's not just the thread but the sequence of the posts that's becoming a trainwreck.

Anyway, oopsies on the double-post and all that.

[elucidator]

I'm wearing ladies' panties right now. Ladies' panties!
Thank you for sharing that.

[rayh]

I'm wearing ladies' panties right now. Ladies' panties!

That's nothing, I'm not wearing any.

[Aeschines]

Thank you for sharing that.And if you have a problem with it, then YOU'VE got a problem.

[Ensign Edison]

Out of bounds, Ensign E. Get riled up all you want but stop it short of wishing physical harm on another poster. This is a warning. Do not do it again.

TVeblen

Wait, what? Since when? I know it's against the rules to wish death, hence my disclaimer. It would probably be against the rules to threaten to do harm. But I can't say I hope something bad something to another poster, or that I think it should?

[Ensign Edison]

Oh, there it is in the sticky. I apologize. Obviously, I was trying to keep the rules in mind, but failed. For the record, I don't actually think Dio should be shot in the knees, nor did I intend to literally advocate such. I know it's still against the rules; just clarifying regardless.

[elucidator]

And if you have a problem with it, then YOU'VE got a problem.
And if I couldn't care less, then I couldn't care less? Seems fair.

[John Mace]

The biological reality is that sex is all about the Xs and the Ys. If you're biologically a male, you're a male. The rest is just so much precious, ivory tower, socio-political bullshit.
So why aren't all biological male individuals attracted to the opposite sex?

Dio, you're usually better at dealing with scientific topics than this. Do you really not understand that it's often more than just XX or XY? Are you really that unfamilar with the scientific part of this euqation? The fact that intersex individuals exist is enough to disprove your hypothesis. One needn't even delve into the realm of "T" to do that.

[Weird With Words]

Anyone who refuses to consider evidence...He hasn't refused to consider evidence, he's refused to consider that evidence to be overwhelming. There is a difference.

...and denies the legitimacy of a minority group...How so? Seems to me he was suggesting the term 'transgendered' itself isn't legitimate. There is a difference.

... based on personal distaste is a fossil with a bigoted outlook.His personal distaste was in regards to a medical procedure, not the recipient his/herself. At the risk of sounding like a broken record (which I hereby propose we change to "badly ripped mp3" to keep current) there is, once again, a difference.

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

I'd pretty much forgotten about the delightfully equine Ms. Coulter. (No, ETF, I don't mean to compare her to horses! Horses are good, Coulter is evil!) Well, there's some horses I'd consider Coulteresquely evil, at least as I observed their departing rumps from the perspective of the bramble thicket I'd landed in. "Horseface" enjoys a long and honorable history as an epithet, doesn't bother me, apply it at will directly to the sorehead. Just, I'd rather people would stop beating one particular dead metaphor, okay?

Hey, Weird With Words, you been away from the boards since 2003 (when I joined), or just flying under the radar? I confess, I never knew your esteemed if sometimes erratic elder had offspring. Glad to see you turned out so well [despite/because of your delightfully warped parental unit?].

[elucidator]

Yeah, but don't you run into Papa Darwin, scowling at you, and pointing out that reproduction is the imperative, everything else is a distant second. I mean, if you're going to boil this all down into bio-science, he's going to be sitting there.

I wouldn't, because I think that for our species, culture transcends evolution. Once we got too smart for our own good, all bets were off.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

And if you have a problem with it, then YOU'VE got a problem.
Aeschines, if you think anyone in this thread would have a problem with that then you're really just seeing what you want to see.

If I may be so bold (and I might as well), I would draw an analogy to religion. Freedom of religious belief and practice is one of the few principles I would literally be willing to die defending, but I would do so without the slightest belief that theistic belief had any basis in reality. Just because your ally thinks you're deluded doesn't mean he can't still be a real ally. What some people in this thread are doing is equivalent to demanding that atheists not only support religious freedom but that they believe in Jesus as well.

[Jackmannii]

I hasten to note you seem to have picked the example you can refute, or at least think you can. What about the rest?The rest of what? Your sterling lobotomy analogy, for example?

As mentioned, it is incredibly foolish to argue that since some scientific/medical beliefs have been found erroneous, you are then free to dismiss any element of science or medicine - not based on logical argument and new scientific evidence, but solely on your own prejudices. "Lobotomies were wrong! Whee!! Now I can ignore global warming! It just sounds silly!!!"

Do you really want to engage in debate on that basis? They rest of it amounts to the same tired insults already offered. Pass.Note that you have dismissed a class of people as deluded, and an impediment to progress on civil rights. And you are griping about being insulted. :rolleyes:


As an aside, it's interesting how the wheel turns and formerly discarded therapeutic approaches are used once again, though not in their original form. Lobotomy is no longer a handy psychiatric tool, but we have successful surgery for intractable seizures that involves excision of parts of the temporal lobe of the brain. Leeches have been reintroduced in some settings to aid in wound healing. And even thalidomide has had a minor revival and sees use in treating leprosy.
None of this happened because of someone's gut feelings - but because people took the trouble to do valid research and clinical studies.

[TVeblen]

Oh, there it is in the sticky. I apologize. Obviously, I was trying to keep the rules in mind, but failed. For the record, I don't actually think Dio should be shot in the knees, nor did I intend to literally advocate such. I know it's still against the rules; just clarifying regardless.

No prob. Warnings are just meant to nudge posters away from no-nos. All's fair and square.

[Miller]

Well, I've never actually been called a bigot before, but imagine it would make me a bit touchy too. Especially if, at least in my own view, I'd been quite sincerely and even actively the opposite for upward of 40 years.

I can, however, think of plenty times I've been insulted in some way that caused my face to get red and my brain to shut off, making any further attempts at rational discussion futile. That's not called being ignorant or bigoted, it's called being human.

I might have a bit more sympathy for this argument, if we weren't talking about the guy who earlier proclaimed:

On the other hand, fuck it, you go around afraid to offend anyone, you will never say anything worth hearing.

I guess that's only okay when he's the one dishing it out, not when he's taking it.

[elucidator]

...None of this happened because of someone's gut feelings - but because people took the trouble to do valid research and clinical studies.
Well, now, don't underestimate the flash! Leo Szilard flashed on the possibility of a chain reaction watching a Budapest traffic light, years before experimentation was even possible. There's been many an intuitive leap in science.

And, after all, The Leader has famously relied on his "gut feelings", and look how well that turned out!

(Well, maybe not the best....)

But if you want to suggest that you are innocent of all opinion before you perform exhaustive research, I'm mighty damned impressed.

[Weird With Words]

I'm wearing ladies' panties right now. Ladies' panties!As opposed to men's panties?

Anyhow, ain't nothing wrong with wearing panties. Just be sure not to get your panties into a twist, can kinda pinch yer balls. Unless you like that kinda thing, I know I do.

[John Mace]

Yeah, but don't you run into Papa Darwin, scowling at you, and pointing out that reproduction is the imperative, everything else is a distant second. I mean, if you're going to boil this all down into bio-science, he's going to be sitting there.

I wouldn't, because I think that for our species, culture transcends evolution. Once we got too smart for our own good, all bets were off.
That is just wrong on so many levels, I wouldn't even know where to begin. Get thee to an evolutionary biology class.

[Miller]

As opposed to men's panties?

Yep. (http://www.manties.net/)

[Diogenes the Cynic]

So why aren't all biological male individuals attracted to the opposite sex?
Because orientation and gender are two different things.
Dio, you're usually better at dealing with scientific topics than this. Do you really not understand that it's often more than just XX or XY? Are you really that unfamilar with the scientific part of this euqation? The fact that intersex individuals exist is enough to disprove your hypothesis. One needn't even delve into the realm of "T" to do that.
Yes, I do know that, but what percentage of indivduals with gender dysmorphia are intersexed or chromosomally ambiguous?

I wan't trying to argue for a hard scientific definition anyway but for the legitimacy of understanding gender as a physical descriptor rather than a self-defined, psychological identification (what I called an "ideological" definition). I actually agree with using the ideological definition for reasons of courtesy, furtherance of social equality, dignity, accetance, etc. but I'm also pragmatic enough to recognize that getting that to be the official definition for all people is going to be a long, uphill climb and that it's not really a useful expenditure of energy, good will or political capital to condescendingly attempt to "educate" or throw the word "bigot" at people who are already on board for everything that matters.

To go back to the 60's comparison, there were well-meaning white supporters who were still capable of some cringe-inducing comments or unconsciously racist assumptions ("He's so articulate"). Even if those people make you wince at times, their hearts are still usually in the right place, and they're needed. Bullying them only hurts their feelings and rarely opens their eyes (not that I think 'lucy is anything akin to a racist).

[elucidator]

That is just wrong on so many levels, I wouldn't even know where to begin. Get thee to an evolutionary biology class.
Well, that sure nails that! Yep, you tore that one up, but good!

[John Mace]

Well, that sure nails that! Yep, you tore that one up, but good!
Eh. If you want to learn about evolution and biology here, start some GD threads. I'm not going to tutor you in this one.

[elelle]

elucidator,in your OP this is what most galled me "I don't feel compelled to offer respect(to trangendered people)" in terms of the shot at Anne Coulter. Because transgendered people are beneath respect? I just don't get the level of ignorance here, and, I've read the whole thread. I've also agreed with you on so many threads, and admire your call for political action in a time that greatly needs all good people speaking up.

With that in mind, people who are in the "gray areas" of acceptance need even more active voice in acceptance. I honestly don't see how you cannot accept transgendered people as what their voice declares; I got it at 12, no problem (am 44 now). The fight is acceptance for all people, with more compassion for those who have a harder row to hoe, and using the grace of voice to lend a hand upwards always to those who don't have the means to get there as easily as you do.

I've always seen you as a strong voice for that cause, so this thread really baffles me. Please open your mind a good bit here.

[Weird With Words]

Hey, compare and contrast guy here, checking in for a little more illustration of differences.

I'm at work writing this, so my apologies if it comes out a decade past relevency.

I might have a bit more sympathy for this argument, if we weren't talking about the guy who earlier proclaimed:On the other hand, fuck it, you go around afraid to offend anyone, you will never say anything worth hearing.Once again, there's a big difference. He was talking about avoiding offense toward third-parties, for whom no offense is intended.

The difference is this: If I were to refer to Robert Reich as "That stupid fucking midget." This would indeed be intended as offensive to the recipient, but would not necessarily be intentionally offensive to a dwarf towards whom the term was not directed. In this case, he is simply saying that trying too dilligently to avoid the latter (i.e. offending third-parties) would prevent you from saying anything. Which would have a chilling effect on all our conversation and demeanor.

Oh, and in case there's any doubt, I got nothing against Robert Reich, dwarves, or anything in-between.

P.S. Does anyone else think, despite all the writing to the contrary, that dwarf just sounds more like a perjorative?

[Weird With Words]

Oh yeah, and Miller? Why do the manties look like granny panties, or perhaps diaper slips?

I shudder.

[elucidator]

...I don’t respect the term “transgendered” as having any real validity, I don’t feel compelled to offer respect....

Ellele, a respectful question deserves a respectful answer. See above. That's what I said. I was talking about the word "transgendered". The word, not the people! Now I know that some of these fellows here have been twisting my words like balloon animals, but it ain't so. It just ain't so. Would you be so kind as to review my very first post? Not to suggest you didn't read it in the first place, but only that, with all the shit flying around, it could easily be lost.

After all these pages, do I think differently? Yeah, some. But not because some....people...decided to exaggerate me into a charicature of a bigot so they could preen thier self-righteous feathers in public. Other posters who's opinions I respect, and who would blush to be mentioned, offered reasonable opinions that would offer the term a definition I can respect. I am one sarcastic sumbitch, and no apologies, but I won't injure someone simply because I can. Luckily, I have real enemies I can use them on, who richly deserve everything I can dish out and more.

The whole thread started because Una Persson expressed some misgivings, and I have no reason, none, to offer her anything but polite attention. Accordingly, I sought to explain myself. Then things got....pretty strange. It seems as though as soon as someone managed to twist my words to conform with their own opinion of me, those paraphrases became the "facts", no matter what I said, or how often.

When I first heard the word, it was offered as a "catch-all" neologism, and, for reasons I have explained, didn't think much of it. Keep in mind, there had been some fairly heated discussion as to whether to form such an alliance at all, some of the more extreme lesbians were insisting that no alliance with the enemy, being men, was possible and their sexual orientation didn't buy them any slack. May seem crazy now, but I was there, and I saw it happening. (Come to think of it, seemed pretty crazy then...)

Then "bi-sexual" was added to the banner. A bit skeptical, as were some gay men, who expressed their opinion that "bi" was simply a cop-out for someone unwilling to clarify their personal issues. Didn't have an opinion on that, didn't know any men who identified as "bi". Knew quite a few women who seemed to slip in and out, depending on the object of their affection. Don't understand that either, but it is what it is, shrug and accept.

But I thought then, and think now, that diluting the message does more harm than good, it confuses the people you are trying to reach. I believed then, and believe now, that pressing the largest demographic is the best tactical move for all concerned. For all concerned. Back-stabbing anyone was, and is, the furthest thing from my mind, and I heartily resent the slur. OK, raise "heartily" to "thermonuclear". And the horse upon in which they rode.

Now, the whole transexual surgery thing is a whole 'nother kettle of piranha, and, unless you think it needful, I'd just as soon pass. Doctor says I only have about forty years to live, and I don't want to waste it chewing the same cud ten or eleven times.

Suffice to say that there is no group of human beings that I would tolerate being deprived of thier human rights, you got a navel, you're in, as far as I'm concerned. How to effect that committment is the only issue with which I disagree with my co-conspirators, and I disagree with all due respect.

That really ought to do it. If not, please advise.

[Weird With Words]

ETF
I've actually been sorta lurking off and on since 2000, mostly just cuz I enjoy my dad's writing. Started posting in 2003, til they started charging at which point I couldn't afford it. But now that I am rich, bitch, I am back as well.

Anyhow, can't say I'm not familiar with your posts. They've met my eye with a good deal of admiration in fact. Rock on.

[Miller]

Once again, there's a big difference. He was talking about avoiding offense toward third-parties, for whom no offense is intended.

Right, and what he said was, he doesn't care if he offends third parties unrelated to whatever dispute he is currently engaged in. I don't think that's particularly admirable, and I think people who do that, deserve to be called on it. If that hurts his feelings, too damn bad.

The difference is this: If I were to refer to Robert Reich as "That stupid fucking midget." This would indeed be intended as offensive to the recipient, but would not necessarily be intentionally offensive to a dwarf towards whom the term was not directed. In this case, he is simply saying that trying too dilligently to avoid the latter (i.e. offending third-parties) would prevent you from saying anything. Which would have a chilling effect on all our conversation and demeanor.

That argument is totally gay.

P.S. Does anyone else think, despite all the writing to the contrary, that dwarf just sounds more like a perjorative?

The term that sounds off to me is "little people." Apparently, it's a preferred nomenclature, but to me, it sounds like it should be proceeded by "Darby O'Gill and." But far be it from me to dictate how others get to define themselves. I'll leave that to the province of your dad.

[elucidator]

...That argument is totally gay...
Not that there's anything wrong with that.

[John Mace]

That argument is totally gay.
May I nominate that one short sentence as the best way to sum up this whole thread? :)

[Weird With Words]

John Mace, I don't want to start a whole different fight here, so just for the purpose of clarification; are you saying society doesn't have any effect of evolution? I mean, one could certainly make the case that evolution moves too slowly to be strongly affected by (comparatively recent) civilization, and much less from society to society. But considering the strong evidence of superficial changes based on sexual and societal preferences, I think it's fairly safe to say society is having at least some effect. Of course, I could be wrong, or maybe I just misinterpreted you.

[Miller]

Ellele, a respectful question deserves a respectful answer. See above. That's what I said. I was talking about the word "transgendered". The word, not the people! Now I know that some of these fellows here have been twisting my words like balloon animals, but it ain't so. It just ain't so. Would you be so kind as to review my very first post? Not to suggest you didn't read it in the first place, but only that, with all the shit flying around, it could easily be lost.

After all these pages, do I think differently? Yeah, some. But not because some....people...decided to exaggerate me into a charicature of a bigot so they could preen thier self-righteous feathers in public. Other posters who's opinions I respect, and who would blush to be mentioned, offered reasonable opinions that would offer the term a definition I can respect. I am one sarcastic sumbitch, and no apologies, but I won't injure someone simply because I can. Luckily, I have real enemies I can use them on, who richly deserve everything I can dish out and more.

The whole thread started because Una Persson expressed some misgivings, and I have no reason, none, to offer her anything but polite attention. Accordingly, I sought to explain myself. Then things got....pretty strange. It seems as though as soon as someone managed to twist my words to conform with their own opinion of me, those paraphrases became the "facts", no matter what I said, or how often.

When I first heard the word, it was offered as a "catch-all" neologism, and, for reasons I have explained, didn't think much of it. Keep in mind, there had been some fairly heated discussion as to whether to form such an alliance at all, some of the more extreme lesbians were insisting that no alliance with the enemy, being men, was possible and their sexual orientation didn't buy them any slack. May seem crazy now, but I was there, and I saw it happening. (Come to think of it, seemed pretty crazy then...)

Then "bi-sexual" was added to the banner. A bit skeptical, as were some gay men, who expressed their opinion that "bi" was simply a cop-out for someone unwilling to clarify their personal issues. Didn't have an opinion on that, didn't know any men who identified as "bi". Knew quite a few women who seemed to slip in and out, depending on the object of their affection. Don't understand that either, but it is what it is, shrug and accept.

But I thought then, and think now, that diluting the message does more harm than good, it confuses the people you are trying to reach. I believed then, and believe now, that pressing the largest demographic is the best tactical move for all concerned. For all concerned. Back-stabbing anyone was, and is, the furthest thing from my mind, and I heartily resent the slur. OK, raise "heartily" to "thermonuclear". And the horse upon in which they rode.

Now, the whole transexual surgery thing is a whole 'nother kettle of piranha, and, unless you think it needful, I'd just as soon pass. Doctor says I only have about forty years to live, and I don't want to waste it chewing the same cud ten or eleven times.

Suffice to say that there is no group of human beings that I would tolerate being deprived of thier human rights, you got a navel, you're in, as far as I'm concerned. How to effect that committment is the only issue with which I disagree with my co-conspirators, and I disagree with all due respect.

That really ought to do it. If not, please advise.

I'm honestly not trying to pick a fight with you here, I swear to God, but every single thing you said in this post reads as a direct contradiction to every other thing you've said in this thread.

I mean, this part here:

But I thought then, and think now, that diluting the message does more harm than good, it confuses the people you are trying to reach. I believed then, and believe now, that pressing the largest demographic is the best tactical move for all concerned. For all concerned. Back-stabbing anyone was, and is, the furthest thing from my mind, and I heartily resent the slur. OK, raise "heartily" to "thermonuclear". And the horse upon in which they rode.

What the hell does this mean? Transexuals deserve rights, but including transexuals in the gay rights movement dilutes the impact? What do you think we should do with transexuals, then? I'm honestly bewildered. How do we avoid diluting the impact of the gay rights movement, while also working to secure rights for transexuals? You say this whole thing was about you objecting to the word transexual. Well, then what was all that talk you had earlier about "delusions," and "transexuality not existing?" Are these people delusional because they're using a word you don't think exists? Not a single damn thing you've said in seven pages makes a lick of sense, and I'm pretty sure it's not because about three dozen posters in here who can't read English all happened to show up in this thread at the same time.

Jesus Jackrabbit Christ, but trying to talk to you is frustrating.

[Excalibre]

Pssst! Jackmannii! Can I just say I'm quite enjoying your contributions to this discussion?


Well, if all three of you are of one mind, then, you must be right! Couldn't be simpler. And it may be fashionable to use the term "queer" but I ain't about to start now. Nope.
No one asked you to. I will continue to use the words I prefer, however, whether you like them or not.


But since this is pretty much down to a conversation about what an asshole I may or may not be, its getting a bit boring. I'm sure you have better things to do. I'll check in if anyone has anything substantial to say, but this is a bit redundant. And besides, it harshes my buzz, dude.
Actually, people have offered pages upon pages of reason and evidence to convince you to consider your views. You have shown yourself completely unwilling to spend any time in introspection to try to figure out why you hold the views you do, whether those views are consistent with one another, and whether they're actually useful views at all. The fact that you won't engage in and can't tolerate any honest discussion of the issue is sad; that you can't stand people attempting to discuss it without developing a persecution complex says something about the sort of person you are.


Because teh gays have been grandfathered into the free-love movement--the gay rights era began in 1968, the Summe of Love. The whole trans thing didn't enter elucidator's consciousness until much later in life, when his squick boundaries had hardened with age.
I wish I could say I disagreed with this, because how sad a thing is that? But it sure looks like it's true.


FWIW, I believe luci is being somewhat pigheaded in his continued insistence that nothing in his OP made him a legitimate target for criticism from other progressive-minded Dopers. Nonetheless, I really think that assertions that this single facet of disagreement disqualify him from claiming the mantle of progressive, and a sincere supporter of and fighter for gay rights, are uncalled for, OTT, unsupported, and ultimately counterproductive.
I think I'm the one who said he doesn't seem like much of a progressive. And that's not really the reason why I said it. The issue, to me, is not whether or not he disagrees so much as whether he can come up with any reason for his opinions. I think it's a very conservative, anti-progressive mindset that informs his thinking on this issue at least - part of the idea of progressivism is to evaluate things on their merits rather than simply deciding that anything you don't immediately understand or relate to is wrong. Conservatism is heavily based upon kneejerk reactions to anything outside your frame of reference; liberalism is fundamentally based upon not assuming that your feelings of what's "right" or "real" are automatically correct.


I'm all done today talking to people who treat me like shit.
You know what? Your little martyr act is getting old. A lot of people have devoted a lot of their time to gathering evidence and formulating arguments in the hopes that you could discuss the issue like an adult. You have yet to engage in anything approaching substantive discussion of any of this; if anything, you've been treated far better than you deserve because a lot of people here had an obviously erroneous belief that you were something more than a silly ideologue.

If you had, at any point, honestly and fairly looked at all the things everyone else in this discussion have shared with you, no one would have complained. If you don't want to be treated as an old fool who goes around opining about things he has no understanding of, then stop acting like it. Why, elucidator, do you expect to be treated as something other than what you have shown yourself to be?

Your opinion on this matter has as much validity and as much worth as the opinions of creationists. And it has the same foundation. If anything, it's amazing that you haven't been mocked more for acting the way you have.


As far as Niccolo Machiavelli is concerned, are you using his name in reference to the superiority of a republic over a principality? The strength of a tripartite structure? Our need for checks and balances in governance? Or are you using it in the strictly perjoritive sense of "the ends justify the means, no matter what the means"?

Any of the former would be valid, as I've known my dad to be generally suspicious of untethered power. The latter, however, is right out. Saying "there are better means to this end" is not remotely similiar to saying "the end justifies the means".
I have no idea why in the world you addressed this to me.



The problem with Diogenes is that he views reality as something constructed out of ideology.
Of all the things people have ever said about me on this board, this has to be the most off the mark. It's also one of the most ironic since it comes from someone who is trying to argue precisely for an ideological definition of gender over a physical one and then seeking to demonize anyone who doesn't fall in line to recognize your purely ideological definition.
I never said anything about the definition of "gender". You're the one who keeps bringing that up. This is further evidence that you don't care much about reality - you're not even addressing the things I've said, but rather the things you think it would be convenient to you for me to say.


The biological reality is that sex is all about the Xs and the Ys. If you're biologically a male, you're a male.
This has already been thoroughly disproven in this thread; examples have already been offered up of how very easily people can have a physical sex at odds with what is expected from their sex chromosomes. Look up Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome.

Then ask yourself why you are attempting to rewrite reality to match up with your convenient, ideological definitions. The pernicious thing about you, Diogenes, is I don't think you even know when you're doing it. You've abandoned objective reality so thoroughly that you don't even notice when you're inventing things that are new and different anymore, whether it's imputing imagined arguments to me, or pretending that sex chromosomes always establish a person's sex.


You can accept those people as enemies of your enemy and get somewhere or you can wait around for everybody to achieve your perfect level of insight and righteousness and turn people off who might otherwise want to help you.
Once again, you are completely off the mark. The fact that you construe my arguments - and I have argued nothing here except that elucidator is not using logically tenable reasoning to support the things he says - as ideology shows how confused your relationship to the world is. All I've said is that people should confront reality honestly, and I have attempted (with no success) to illustrate the logical problems with what elucidator has said. You have a long history of being a shrill, screaming lefty, and you become irrational when people disagree with you.

Me, I don't care that much whether other people share my views or not. My only deal here is that I find it frustrating to watch someone engage in mindless, fallacious effort to avoid understanding reality on reality's terms. That's why I have argued this matter only through attempts to break through 'luci's cloud of illogic. You can chalk up wanting to confront reality honestly as Ivory Tower, elitist, latte-driving Volvo-sipping nonsense if you like; in fact, I wouldn't really expect anything else from you, Diogenes.

But it's you who's only capable of viewing this as a political issue. Me? The political aspect of this takes a major backseat for me; what I care about is the academic portion of the discussion.


Dio, you're usually better at dealing with scientific topics than this.
Cite?


He hasn't refused to consider evidence, he's refused to consider that evidence to be overwhelming. There is a difference.
On the contrary. He has already been caught having completely ignored a cite offered his way; he has also refused to respond to arguments that, as far as I could tell, pretty thoroughly took apart the claims he made.

There's a difference between honest disagreement and intellectual dishonesty. I know he's your paw, but he's way off-base in this discussion.



Yes, I do know that, but what percentage of indivduals with gender dysmorphia are intersexed or chromosomally ambiguous?
No one knows, in part because we probably haven't even identified every type of intersexism (intersexuality?) The more obvious conditions tend to be the ones that are discovered first.

[elucidator]

Sir! You have stated that my son's argument is gay! Clearly, you can't mean anything by that but to demean his humanity and relegate him to a contemptible status. Don't try and tell me it isn't what you meant, I know what you meant. You saying it isn't what you meant merely proves that it must be so! You're lucky I don't know where to buy a horsewhip!

[elucidator]

...Jesus Jackrabbit Christ, but trying to talk to you is frustrating.
Try listening. Might help.

[Miller]

Sir! You have stated that my son's argument is gay! Clearly, you can't mean anything by that but to demean his humanity and relegate him to a contemptible status. Don't try and tell me it isn't what you meant, I know what you meant. You saying it isn't what you meant merely proves that it must be so! You're lucky I don't know where to buy a horsewhip!

I'm very serious here, elucidator. Prior to this thread, you were one of my favorite posters, and I'd really like to find a way back to that opinion, but you're not making it easy. I want to take what you said in your post to ellele at face value, but it simply doesn't jibe with all the other stuff you've said in this thread. Help me out here, please. Answer some of the questions I asked in my last post. Or at least, answer this one: how do you think the gay rights movement in general should treat transexuals? When I earlier described your position as "stabbing them in the back," I didn't expect you to be insulted, because I really, honestly, truly did not see any other way to possibly interpret what you are saying. Since that was apparently wrong, what was I supposed to take away from that?

[Excalibre]

Try listening. Might help.
Ack! My ironymeter just exploded! Shit! There's shards of glass and twisted bits of metal everywhere!

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Ack! My ironymeter just exploded! Shit! There's shards of glass and twisted bits of metal everywhere!
Once more, folks: using your irony meter near the Internet voids the warranty.

elucidator, you suggest that "diluting the message does more harm than good, it confuses the people you are trying to reach." I think this is wrong, and harmful.

Steven Pinker talks about (and this idea is not original to him) the expanding circle of ethics: as humans expand their circle of entities to whom they have ethical obligations, life improves generally. When you go out from your immediate family to your neighborhood, then to your town, then to your country, then to all humanity--at each stage, life gets better for everyone. To the extent that there's such a thing as moral progress it comprises humans expanding their ethical circle in this fashion.

I think that this same principle applies here. What you call diluting the message is what I call applying the principle equitably. The principle in question is that your sexuality is none of my goddam beeswax. If you're gay, if you're a furry, if you're transsexual, if you're a fruitarian, if you're asexual---whatever does or does not float your boat is NoMGB. As long as no nonconsenting party is involved. NoMGB.

What other principle is important? Why should any particular sexuality be privileged by this principle? Sure, gay rights might be the first, by virtue of historical accident; but what ethical principle would make gay rights more important than, say, asexual rights? NoMGB.

We need to expand this; and in so doing, we don't dilute the message, we strengthen it. We make it clear that, no matter what niggling little objection someone comes up with to gay rights (or fruitfucker rights), it doesn't matter, because it's NoTGB either.

It doesn't dilute the message. It makes it consistent.

Daniel

[John Mace]

John Mace, I don't want to start a whole different fight here, so just for the purpose of clarification; are you saying society doesn't have any effect of evolution? I mean, one could certainly make the case that evolution moves too slowly to be strongly affected by (comparatively recent) civilization, and much less from society to society. But considering the strong evidence of superficial changes based on sexual and societal preferences, I think it's fairly safe to say society is having at least some effect. Of course, I could be wrong, or maybe I just misinterpreted you.
I'm not sure what is meant by the phrase "society doesn't have any effect on evolution". Human intelligence and culture certainly can operate a lot like evolution by natural selection and can shield us from certain environmental factors that would affect almost any other animal differently. But the issues of sexual orientation and gender identification are most likely influnced heavily during fetal devolpment, at which point "culture" is a non-factor. If there's one thing that intersex individuals have taught us, it's that gender (or sexual identity/orientation) is not a societal construct that can be manipulated independently of biology.

Does that clarify things?

[Miller]

Daniel, I think (and maybe I'm still way off) that what elucidator is saying is not that transexuals shouldn't have rights, but that they shouldn't have a seperate term defining them apart from homosexuals in general. Like, we should just refer to everyone who isn't totally straight as "gay." I think what he's saying is that, if we say, "Gays and transexuals should have the same rights as straights," then people are going to get all confused over what we mean by "transexual" and decide not to give any of us rights.

Am I anywhere close to understanding that correctly, elucidator?

[elucidator]

All right, I'll trust you. Lord knows, none of us get through this life without needing more forgiveness than we can get.

...how do you think the gay rights movement in general should treat transexuals?....
As a group of people with whom you feel some special empathy. An empathy born of a mutual understanding of oppression and your desire that it should cease for all. That this is the goal of your undertaking: freedom, justice, all of that stuff. Welcome them in, the door is open, freak freely (its a hippy thing...you wouldn't understand). Make it entirely clear that you believe that none is free until all are free. All, or none. If you, or the majority of you, agree with me that keeping the banners and such simple, as a tactical measure....then do so. If you have established sufficient trust, what's the prob? Trust each other, what can go wrong? Having all these mutual interests in common, why not? If you don't insist that everyone identify and is labeled, you could insist the opposite, that no one do so!

And if you don't agree with me on the tactics, then you don't. Your call, your rubber ducky. Then open up outreach to the Baptist Youth League....well, maybe think that one over.

I don't know if the comparison is apt, but I have (always?) voted Democrat, but I am not a Democrat, and wouldn't so declare. But I compromise for tactical reasons! Every fucking time! Because that is the reality on the ground, in a world universally uninterested in my helpful suggestions.

If I can, you can, she can. Are we not men?

[elucidator]

Daniel, I think (and maybe I'm still way off) that what elucidator is saying is not that transexuals shouldn't have rights, but that they shouldn't have a seperate term defining them apart from homosexuals in general. Like, we should just refer to everyone who isn't totally straight as "gay." I think what he's saying is that, if we say, "Gays and transexuals should have the same rights as straights," then people are going to get all confused over what we mean by "transexual" and decide not to give any of us rights.

Am I anywhere close to understanding that correctly, elucidator?
Damn! Nailed it! Posolutely, absitively nailed it! Now, I wish I hadn't wasted all that time and brain juice answering you!

Ah, well. Peace.

[elucidator]

That's some interesting stuff, Dan. Too much for now, dilithium crystals buckling. I will consider.

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

Damn! Nailed it! Posolutely, absitively nailed it! Now, I wish I hadn't wasted all that time and brain juice answering you!

Ah, well. Peace.:: arms akimbo, foot tapping ::

Then why didn't you just say so? :mad:

[matt_mcl]

Don't really see the need, he presents cites as facts, I accept that they are. Or, more to the point, they represent the state of research as it stands. To my mind, they qualify as evidence but not proof. I don't really think there will be any proof, except time.

Besides, I didn't take Matts posts as argument, so much as information. Pretty much trust him on sources, always seemed like a straight shooter.

I thought I was arguing, but here you go - here's some argument, and as it's from, I hope, someone you don't believe has been treating you like shit, I hope it will make some difference.

Let's start with LGBT rights.

Trans people have not been abruptly added to the acronym. They have been there, unrecognized, for ages - back when a gay bar and a tranny bar were the same thing. The first person to throw a stone at Stonewall is reputed to have been Silvia Rivera, a transgendered woman working as a drag queen. This has continued to the present day: currently, the co-chair of my party's LGBT federal and provincial committees is a Queer trans woman. All we've done in modern times is recognize a key concept, which is that trans people are a specific and important distinct community within the LGBT movement.

Your argument that 1) you acknowledge the need for trans rights and 2) trans rights should not be promoted as such seems to me to rest on one assumption: 3) trans rights will advance exactly as lesbian, gay, and bisexual rights advance, with no need for any specific inclusion. We can just never talk about the trans people, and they will somehow be grandfathered in. This is not true. As has been explained, trans and gender-variant people face a very wide range of significant challenges that do not face normatively-gendered LGB people.

However, we all want the right for our claim on a common humanity and our full participation in society not to be hampered by other people's ideas about how people of a given sex ought to behave. Unfortunately, it is all too easy for the normatively-gendered LGB community to leave this behind and focus only on specifics that benefit only them - or only a subset of them, more commonly - but seem somehow easier.

In my opinion, that's self-destructive. Seeking specific individual globs of rights without building the ethical framework that makes those rights solid leaves itself open to backlash. And a movement that gains rights only for its more popular members is a house with no foundation; it's facile, counterproductive, and morally vacuous, especially since those in the movement who are already the highest placed in society frequently abandon the movement when they've gotten to a point where they feel comfortable - where the depredations only affect those safely below them on the echelon. A free society is one where it's safe to be unpopular, as someone said, and the test of our rights is whether they apply to all of us.

Besides, with what I said about our history above, it would be -- it is -- so very ungrateful for non-trans people to turn around, freak out, and decide the trannies are bad PR. I do not want my human rights to be determined by focus group; and straddling the line as I do, it hurts my heart when I hear arguments like that, because I realize on some level it's me they're - you're - talking about. I'm the one they think is dead weight. I'm not trans, but I am femme, genderqueer, and I have been told to my face that I need to be quiet and stop scaring the straight people by being who I am; my only function in the movement is as ballast. I refuse to accept that. Trans and genderqueer rights are human rights. It's unethical, ungrateful, and unwise for the LGB community to leave the T behind.

Now, when you say you believe yourself to be an ally to the trans community, but deny the validity of the trans experience, that's really rather incoherent. A huge part of trans rights simply is acceptance of trans people's lives and identities; not second-guessing them, not asserting that their identity is delusional, not saying they just haven't met the right therapist yet, but instead affirming them, acknowledging the control they have over their bodies and the grasp they have of their own identities and what's best for themselves, and simply doing them the courtesy of accepting them as the prima facie authority on their own selves, as we do for most every other person.

It's been hard to read what you've written about transgendered people, elucidator. It hurts. It hurts to think that if I were trans, that is the opinion you'd have of me: a blithe assertion that trans people are not only not worth fighting for, they're not even worth learning about.

These aren't some random people's lives we're dispassionately discussing, they're our brothers and sisters - and for some of us here on this board, they're us.

[Miller]

Damn! Nailed it! Posolutely, absitively nailed it! Now, I wish I hadn't wasted all that time and brain juice answering you!

Ah, well. Peace.

Okay, awesome. Glad we could work that out. Sorry for calling you a bigot.

[elucidator]

Okay, awesome. Glad we could work that out. Sorry for calling you a bigot.
Por nada. Never happens again, never happened at all.

Waiter, a shot of caveat! Small. "..or they won't give them to us". Of course they will, you're well on your way. My only suggestion is in hope that it will arrive sooner. Period. A little democratic judo, is all. Maybe just a touch of canny skullduggery.

Matt, like I said to Dan, my brains are turning to cheese. You got some valid shit to say, but I can't like, you know, relate. Manana?

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

If I can, you can, she can. Are we not men? :dubious:

Speak for yourself, pal.

[kaylasdad99]

Sorry, Kaylasdad. Like I said, I ignored some stuff I shouldn't have talking to these two-a-nickel revolutionaries. Bet The Man is quaking in his boots, knowing these bad asses are on the move.

Maybe I read you wrong, but you seem to be suggesting that you think I was in favor of lobotomizing "trannys" (I always thought that meant transmissions, like a Hurst Tranny on a GTO, but hey....)Actually, I thought you were saying that it had been a treatment modality for transsexualism in the past. My brain fart. The larger point, which I may not have gotten around to articulating, come to think of it, was supposed to be that the efficacy of the current types of treatment would tend to suggest that the thing the subjects sought treatment for, actually exists.And recovered memories, for another. Now we realise, a total crock. So, who's to say this surgery isn't another of these? Not me, surely. Given the cites above, I am somewhat reassured on this, but not wholly convinced. If it works, and gives relief, great! But if it doesn't, there's a heckuva price to pay. Not convinced.That strikes me as being a measurable departure from some of the more absolute assertions in the OP, and I'm happy to take note of it.Maybe stubborn, maybe cautious, hell, I don't know, you'll have to ask the snot-nose punks who know my mind better than I do. And need we even mention the wonder-drug, thalidomide?

Just sayin', it wouldn't be the first time.

Does that answer?Yeah, I suppose it does, at least for my somewhat limited personal needs. Thanks for taking the time.

P.S. Welcome back, Weird With Words! I'm looking forward to the pleasure of reading your further contribuitons to the Board.

[Ensign Edison]

Okay, awesome. Glad we could work that out. Sorry for calling you a bigot.

He's lying. Read his posts again. What happened to "I sure hope my kid's not one of those freaks"? What happened to "it's delusional mutilation"? No. He's lying. That was never his entire point.

[Excalibre]

All right, I'll trust you. Lord knows, none of us get through this life without needing more forgiveness than we can get.


As a group of people with whom you feel some special empathy. An empathy born of a mutual understanding of oppression and your desire that it should cease for all. That this is the goal of your undertaking: freedom, justice, all of that stuff. Welcome them in, the door is open, freak freely (its a hippy thing...you wouldn't understand). Make it entirely clear that you believe that none is free until all are free. All, or none. If you, or the majority of you, agree with me that keeping the banners and such simple, as a tactical measure....then do so. If you have established sufficient trust, what's the prob? Trust each other, what can go wrong? Having all these mutual interests in common, why not? If you don't insist that everyone identify and is labeled, you could insist the opposite, that no one do so!

And if you don't agree with me on the tactics, then you don't. Your call, your rubber ducky. Then open up outreach to the Baptist Youth League....well, maybe think that one over.

I don't know if the comparison is apt, but I have (always?) voted Democrat, but I am not a Democrat, and wouldn't so declare. But I compromise for tactical reasons! Every fucking time! Because that is the reality on the ground, in a world universally uninterested in my helpful suggestions.

If I can, you can, she can. Are we not men?
Frankly, this is not remotely consistent with the other things you've said in this thread.

Very nice post, matt_mcl.


He's lying. Read his posts again. What happened to "I sure hope my kid's not one of those freaks"? What happened to "it's delusional mutilation"? No. He's lying. That was never his entire point.
There's no point, Ensign. elucidator's popular here, apparently. People will ignore what he says if it doesn't match what they'd like him to be.

But yeah; this sudden about-face (particularly when he doesn't even present it as such) is about as credible as Mark Foley's apology for trying to screw teenage boys.

[Jackmannii]

Pssst! Jackmannii! Can I just say I'm quite enjoying your contributions to this discussion?Thanks.

Was it the leeches? :)

[rayh]

Are we not men?

We are Devo!

[OneCentStamp]

The way you've continued to misuse them without even acknowledging his post strikes me as postively Bushian.
(bolding mine)

As an aside, I think this is going to become the Godwinization of the 21st Century. :D

[elucidator]

Matt:

Rested, freckled, and ready!

To begin what I dare to hope is the last long march down this road....

...We can just never talk about the trans people, and they will somehow be grandfathered in. This is not true. As has been explained, trans and gender-variant people face a very wide range of significant challenges that do not face normatively-gendered LGB people. ...
Amongst other perfectly sensible criticisms...

Let me sketch out an example. Here in Baja Canada, we have the peculiar institution, the Democratic Farmer-Labor Party. Minnesota history is formed by a large population influx of your hardy Nordic squarehead types, a racial and linguistic subgroup that has produced some of the most beautiful women and the most ghastly cuisine known to Person. These people brought a sincere work ethic and a hearty populist and progressive inclination. An inclination that, at the time, was somewhat radical, socialist. (You think Garrison Keillor is kidding about Lake Wobegon? He is, but not by much...)

Recognizing a common bond in resistance to the running dog jackals of the ruling class, they formed a party in unison with the Democrats, merging them into one political unit for the advantages gained in numbers. This is the most elementary fact of life in a republic: the bigger the party, the more interests represented, the more power accrues to serve those interests. Hence, the DFL, about as big a tent as possible. (Even included Communists, until a motor-mouthed hotshot lawyers from Mpls named Hubert Humphrey ran them off...)

Lets use this as a starting point. The DFL was an early champion of civil rights for colored folks early on, long before the notion was widely popular. Naturally, such people flocked to the DFL as representing their best interests. Not that they knew a nemotode from a toothbrush, but for reasons of political pragmatism, it made sense to align themselves with farmers, however divergent thier lives were.

Would it have made sense, then, for the DFL to become the Democratic Farmer Labor Negro party? Surely, it would lend much desired respectability and "face" to colored folks within the party, but at what cost? Given that the widest appeal brings the most power, and power furthers the movement toward freedom and justice? After all, the colored folks are already on board, no further outreach is required, they have the good sense to know who is most on their side. Not wholly committed, not waking up every morning wondering how to advance the cause of colored folks, but most. And, of course, if they had done, they would have run the risk of alienating some portion of the voters, diluting their power and weakening their capacity to help.

I'm sure you see what I'm getting at here. Most people by now know what gay, bisexual, and lesbian mean, and a large portion of them don't like it. This is born of ignorance, to be sure, and we're working on it. The heavy lifting is moving those people from "don't like" to "uneasy, maybe, but what the hell, live and let live, right?" This is a major shift, Matt, major! Huge!

You don't want to do anything to disrupt that change, and you can be damned sure your enemies will try to! So, to sum up....if the DFL had changed its name to the DFLN party, it would have been the triumph of ideological purity over pragmatism. Compromise is often pretty yucky, but you have to decide: fish or make sushi.

Now that the T has already been added, I don't think it a good idea to remove it. But for heavens sake, don't keep adding on groups and sub-groups, especially as such additions are likely to alienate the people you need without adding any more support than you already have! If you're about to do something and you can hear your enemies chuckling and rubbing their hands in glee, think it over!

...Now, when you say you believe yourself to be an ally to the trans community, but deny the validity of the trans experience, that's really rather incoherent...
Yes, repeat, no. For me, the validity of the "trans experience" is that all have navels, they are people, hence, they are valid. Period. I am an ally of the immigrant community, but I only speak English. (Well, I can ask you where the library is at in Spanish and Russian, but if you answer, I won't know what you're saying...)

If you present the "trans experience" to me as it were originally: that is, a person of one gender in the body of another, I cannot grasp it, it makes no sense that a fully formed gender identity could be implanted in the body of the opposite gender, it borders on metaphysics. I would call that an "illusion" or even a "delusion". It just ain't so, it can't be so!

To make an allusion, I have a similar delusion, common to people as they enter thier early maturity: that I am still "me". I feel myself, experience myself, as though I had not changed since I was around 20. I gaze at myself in the mirror and wonder "Who dat? Not me." And I know it isn't so, I am not him, he wasn't a father, hell, he hadn't even had his heart broke! I know better, but the experience doesn't change. It is a delusion! Happily, it is a relatively harmless delusion unless I decide that "I" can play rugby.

Now, if we simply alter the definition to say "tranny" to mean people who experience themselves as if they were of another gender....problem solved. Then the question becomes how to resolve such issues, how to bring a fair measure of contentment. As I've said, I have grave doubts about surgical alteration, which, if it fails, is a "mutilation" and could be so described even if it succeeds. The word alteration describes precisely the same procedure as mutilation. I choose the latter to describe my discomfort and skepticism about the procedure, not in order to denigrate the unfortunate souls who look to it for relief. I simply wouldn't do such a thing, it is antithetical to my values.

You have offered evidence, valid evidence, that I may very well be wrong. Duly noted, I've been wrong before. In '68, when I thought I had made a mistake. But I'm not convinced, and I will not pretend to be convinced simply to be polite. I must trust you to accept my candor as respect. I expect the benefit of the doubt as I offer it, that I can be skeptical about something like this without being accused of bias and bigotry. It ain't so, it just ain't so. Period. Full stop.

But this has no bearing whatever on my concern for the rights and validity of such people. None whatsoever. I certainly wouldn't make such procedures illegal, but I would press for research into alternatives into less drastic amelioration.

I have undoubtedly given more thought to "tranny" issues today and yesterday than ever before, or again. Its not part of my life. Neither is the Hindu community, but my support for their rights is not in jeapordy as a consequence.

It is an absurdity to delineate and enumerate every group and sub-group whose rights I support. Human rights is the legitimate cause, you got a navel, you're in. (You do, right?) I support you as you support me and we go forward together. I don't see any other way, our enemies are legion, and they are powerful! Together, we have a chance, otherwise, we are toast. Their toast.

I hope this answers, but I stand ready if you need more. Kinda hope not, truth be told, because I am really worn out on this subject. But if stern duty demands, a man's gotta do what a man's gotta do, whacka do, whacka do.

Yours in Revolution,
e.

[elucidator]

And .22 Calibre? Have I invited you to bite me yet? Sorry for the oversight!

Bite me.

[kimera]

Yes, I do know that, but what percentage of indivduals with gender dysmorphia are intersexed or chromosomally ambiguous?

Most, if not all. That's why they are transsexuals. Of the transsexuals I know who I've met in person and are very sane and focused, almost all of the ones who had money to do the genetic testing were found to be intersexed (chromosomally ambiguous is intersexed). There are forms of intersexed that we do not have the current technology to fully detect so it is not inconceivable that the others are intersexed as well. Your proclamation that X and Y are the end-all is just laughable, especially compared to what I've already explained in this thread. My XX friends with penes wishes that were the case. Unfortunately, it is not and one of them is getting SRS next month.

elucidator and Dio, I don't care if you hate trannies and think they are disgusting foul creatures. What I do care about is if you spout bad science. You can say that the science is inconclusive and therefore you don't believe it, but don't keep throwing out these stupid statements we've already refuted. Chromosomes are not the deciding factors for sex.

Elucidator, some trans people have improperly been considered to be eunuchs, but if you examine the situation in more detail, you will find that is not the case. First of all, eunuchs were male identified men who had their testicles (usually it was just the testicles) removed for various reasons. Sometimes they were prisoners, young boys who the church wanted for falsetto singing, servants who the royalty thought would be safer, harem guards. These people normally had castration forced upon them, although some chose it due to the high social status it sometimes entailed.

On the other hand, you constantly come across reports as people who become castrated and then live as females or a third gender. These are usually different societies then ones in which castration was practiced although interestingly, sometimes it was done in the same society and each group had a different role. In societies where they are considered females, they are fully accepted as a female and allowed to do female work, wear female clothing, marry men, etc (some societies allow individuals to do this without castration). In some societies, they are regarded as a third gender and often attributed with special powers. They normally either dress in female clothing or a mixture of male and female clothing. Often they are shamans or hold other highly regarded positions of power. You can come across a lot of details on these people if you read gay history books because these people were considered gay by many histories, even though some of these individuals married women after transitioning. It’s only recently that people have been aware that homosexuality is not connected to transsexuality. Not everyone is aware of this though and gay men are forced to transition in Iran where homosexuality is punishable by death but transsexuality is considered OK by the Koran.

And I haven’t even begun to discuss transsexual animals….

[Ensign Edison]

You have offered evidence, valid evidence, that I may very well be wrong. Duly noted, I've been wrong before. In '68, when I thought I had made a mistake. But I'm not convinced, and I will not pretend to be convinced simply to be polite. I must trust you to accept my candor as respect. I expect the benefit of the doubt as I offer it, that I can be skeptical about something like this without being accused of bias and bigotry. It ain't so, it just ain't so. Period. Full stop.

Actually, clinging to an irrational belief in the face of strong contrary evidence is pretty much the definition of a bad bias.

Also, people who declare how they're proudly going to be rude are funny when they're simultaneously bitching about people being sarcastic at them.

[Excalibre]

Would it have made sense, then, for the DFL to become the Democratic Farmer Labor Negro party? Surely, it would lend much desired respectability and "face" to colored folks within the party, but at what cost?
Oh, so this is all about the acronym? This is what your whole argument was about? Funny, then, that you said this: "I remember having these discussions and a gay man of my collective refusing to accept that hetero TV's had any standing in his 'movement', and I thought he had a very good point. Still do. After all, a TV can just change clothes, and my buddy couldn't."

So, no. You actually said that transsexual people can just change their clothes and act normal, and thus don't need any equal rights movement on their behalf.

Spin, spin, spin, elucidator. I'd be offended that you expect me to believe this absolute bullshit, except that most likely, a lot of people will. That's the sad part. You're trying to claim you didn't say things that you did. Jesus. I can't believe you can even bring yourself to spew this kind of bullshit.


Now that the T has already been added, I don't think it a good idea to remove it. But for heavens sake, don't keep adding on groups and sub-groups, especially as such additions are likely to alienate the people you need without adding any more support than you already have! If you're about to do something and you can hear your enemies chuckling and rubbing their hands in glee, think it over!
You know, insightful and indeed funny things can be said about the crazy heterogeneity of the queer movement. But it seems less effective coming from someone who said that transsexual people should just "change their clothes."


If you present the "trans experience" to me as it were originally: that is, a person of one gender in the body of another, I cannot grasp it, it makes no sense that a fully formed gender identity could be implanted in the body of the opposite gender, it borders on metaphysics. I would call that an "illusion" or even a "delusion". It just ain't so, it can't be so!

To make an allusion, I have a similar delusion, common to people as they enter thier early maturity: that I am still "me". I feel myself, experience myself, as though I had not changed since I was around 20. I gaze at myself in the mirror and wonder "Who dat? Not me." And I know it isn't so, I am not him, he wasn't a father, hell, he hadn't even had his heart broke! I know better, but the experience doesn't change. It is a delusion! Happily, it is a relatively harmless delusion unless I decide that "I" can play rugby.

Now, if we simply alter the definition to say "tranny" to mean people who experience themselves as if they were of another gender....problem solved. Then the question becomes how to resolve such issues, how to bring a fair measure of contentment. As I've said, I have grave doubts about surgical alteration, which, if it fails, is a "mutilation" and could be so described even if it succeeds. The word alteration describes precisely the same procedure as mutilation. I choose the latter to describe my discomfort and skepticism about the procedure, not in order to denigrate the unfortunate souls who look to it for relief. I simply wouldn't do such a thing, it is antithetical to my values.
Oh my God. More utter bullshit. More attempts to spin away what you said, so you can dissociate yourself from what you actually said, and maintain that you were saying something else all along.

That's so fucking pathetic, elucidator. What a pathetic load of bullshit. You're trying to claim some invisible distinction; this makes Bill Clinton's argument over the definition of "is" look like Biblical exegesis.

Is this why you write this way? If you fill your writing with incomprehensible cutesy bullshit, you'll have an out if people attempt to make you account for what you've said? Or did you just do way too many drugs back in the day?


But I'm not convinced, and I will not pretend to be convinced simply to be polite. I must trust you to accept my candor as respect. I expect the benefit of the doubt as I offer it, that I can be skeptical about something like this without being accused of bias and bigotry. It ain't so, it just ain't so. Period. Full stop.
You're not convinced, and that's probably because you haven't honestly examined the evidence. I know you haven't, because you didn't respond to dozens of good arguments and pieces of evidence - in fact, you didn't even bother looking at the evidence Lilairen posted, as indicated by the fact that you thought it was knew when matt_mcl posted it.

You know, it might be possible to honestly evaluate the evidence and come to a different conclusion. I really don't see how your conclusion could differ if you really examined the evidence - but I will certainly acknowledge that other people can look at the same evidence and come to totally different conclusions, and it's possible that I've missed some completely reasonable, valid interpretation of the data. However, you have refused to consider the evidence at all; you've spent this whole thread skipping over arguments and refusing to look at the evidence people have sent your way. What is that other than bigotry? Refusing to even examine real evidence because it doesn't fit in with your preconceived notions - what can that possibly be other than bigotry?


It is an absurdity to delineate and enumerate every group and sub-group whose rights I support. Human rights is the legitimate cause, you got a navel, you're in. (You do, right?) I support you as you support me and we go forward together. I don't see any other way, our enemies are legion, and they are powerful! Together, we have a chance, otherwise, we are toast. Their toast.
Except, per what you said before, for groups who can get along with the normal people just by changing their clothes. You don't support their rights - you explicitly said so!


But, of course, you're not going to respond to this. Because if someone posts without kissing your ass sufficiently, you feel entitled to ignore what they said. So you're going to continue to pretend that what you said in this thread is actually harmonious with your claims to support every person's rights. And, most likely, a lot of people will believe you, because frankly, most people really are that dumb.

[matt_mcl]

Would it have made sense, then, for the DFL to become the Democratic Farmer Labor Negro party? Surely, it would lend much desired respectability and "face" to colored folks within the party, but at what cost? Given that the widest appeal brings the most power, and power furthers the movement toward freedom and justice? After all, the colored folks are already on board, no further outreach is required, they have the good sense to know who is most on their side.

Is that what you believe, that the name of the LGBT rights movement is equivalent to that of a political party? That this is a matter of branding? "LGBT" is not a brand! It's a list, a partial list, of people in the community. And we don't put together our community and include and exclude people from it on the basis of marketing.

You don't want to do anything to disrupt that change, and you can be damned sure your enemies will try to!

Do you believe the backlash that we've recently experiencing is due, or even partially due, to the fact that some of us now include the word "transgender" in the name of the movement that we're part of? If so, please disabuse yourself. I have never heard of such a thing. "Well, as long as it was just attacking the institution of marriage and infiltrating our schools and the military, I was okay with that. But then those other people wanted sex change operations, and I drew the line!"

And even if it were to somehow be made more difficult because of trans-inclusiveness, it would still be a good idea. Remember: this is in large part a fight for awareness, and we can't raise awareness of trans issues if we don't admit that trans people exist and are a part of our community.

But this has no bearing whatever on my concern for the rights and validity of such people. None whatsoever.

But it does, Blanche, it does. So much of this -- and you really must trust me on this, for all the LGBT demystification education I've done -- is based, as I said, on awareness and acceptance of people's own account of themselves. That's exactly what the trans community is fighting for: to have their own account of themselves accepted.

I accept that you're trying, in good faith, to be an ally for trans rights and the LGBT community. But you cannot simply declare yourself trans people's ally. You cannot say 1) I am in solidarity with the struggle of trans people and 2) I do not accept trans people's account of themselves; as a non-trans person, I deny how trans people describe themselves and I think the treatment many of them are fighting for is foolhardy.

It's not a matter of ideology: it's a matter that the very oppression that these people face centres around a denial on the part of the greater society that they are who and what they say they are. The trans rights movement centres around being able to define your own gender and not have that second-guessed. If you are second-guessing the gender of others, that is inimical to the trans rights movement.

Part of being part of a progressive movement fighting for the rights of a disempowered group, as a member of the empowered group, is be guided by what the disempowered group is fighting for, not what you think they ought to. (And I acknowledge here that I am a non-trans person, but I am a genderqueer member of the LGBT community and I have undergone and provided extensive demystification and ally-building training on trans issues, so I hope I can be forgiven for addressing trans issues in this way.)

Do you think that someone could truly be an ally for LGB civil rights if they denied that we were truly attracted to members of our own sex, we just thought we were, and that maybe some better way to express our desire besides through sex and relationships with members of our own sex? It's not enough to say "I believe that everyone should have equal rights," and think you won't have to deal with the nature of the people you're asking for equal rights for. There are specifics involved: the specific identity and account of that community, and the specifics of what they need to be able to put them on an equal footing.

So. Please, if this is important to you, as I believe it is, open up. Come back on your statements that you don't need to learn anything about trans people. Hear from them. Hear their individual stories, when they choose to share them. Practise being supportive, the simple mercy of listening to someone and accepting what they say about who they are. It can be bewildering at first, but as they say, a mind, once stretched, never returns to its original dimensions.

[Excalibre]

And .22 Calibre? Have I invited you to bite me yet? Sorry for the oversight!

Bite me.
Yeah, that's pretty much par for the course, isn't it? People make reasonable arguments, you decide those arguments are "neutron star dense" or you just tell them to bite you.

Man, you are one pathetic old man, aren't you? Not only can't you reconsider the views you decided on thirty years ago, but the only thing you have to say to anyone who disagrees with you is insults.

[kimera]

elucidator, I hate the phrases "man trapped in a woman's body", "male body with a woman's soul", etc. I am a biological anthropologist heavily on the biological side and I don't believe in souls. If that is how it was explained to you then I can see why you would reject it. I would've rejected it if it was presented to me like that. I'll be sure to work within the trans community to get people away from using those phrases. The hard part would be coming up with a better short explanation for what it actually is. Do you think you would be more inclined to believe it if you were only presented with scientific explanations and evidence?

[elucidator]

...elucidator and Dio, I don't care if you hate trannies and think they are disgusting foul creatures...
Oh, Lord love a duck! Are you paying any attention to what I've actually said? I give up, pal. Think what you want, doesn't mean shit to a tree.

...but transsexuality is considered OK by the Koran....
This, on the other hand, is damned interesting! Can you cite?

[elucidator]

elucidator, I hate the phrases "man trapped in a woman's body", "male body with a woman's soul", etc. I am a biological anthropologist heavily on the biological side and I don't believe in souls. If that is how it was explained to you then I can see why you would reject it. I would've rejected it if it was presented to me like that. I'll be sure to work within the trans community to get people away from using those phrases. The hard part would be coming up with a better short explanation for what it actually is. Do you think you would be more inclined to believe it if you were only presented with scientific explanations and evidence?
Aw, heck, kimera, I wish I'd seen this first! Yes, that's it in a nutshell.

(I'm getting a deja voodoo here. Have we had this discussion before?...)

I really don't see how our views are in conflict. Have I missed something?

And, as well, I am still very interested in your comment about the Koran. Please do follow up on that, I love being interested!

[elucidator]

...Man, you are one pathetic old man, aren't you?....
Get off my lawn!

[kimera]

elucidator, I'm not saying that is what you do think, I am saying that I don't care if you do think that.

I think I understand where you are coming from now. We've been introduced to transsexuality two different ways. I was introduced to transsexuality through the pages of my cultural anthropology book where they were classified as types of homosexuals. I always thought that was incorrect and surmised that there must be a biological cause for both transsexuality and homosexuality due to the fact that I kept coming across it in different cultures in different times all over the world. I was raised in a conservative environment and had been told that homosexuality was a modern invention so it was quite a shock to see what a long, cultural history it had. I remember when I was reading the first text required for my Cultural Anthropology 101 class and came across homosexuality. I nearly fell out of my chair, especially at how casually it was mentioned. At that, I read my college's entire human sexuality section. I studied transsexuals from a scientific perspective before I ever met one. You have not had the benefit of a scientific analysis and therefore you understandably disbelieve.

Here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/4115535.stm) is an article about sex changes in Iran. Also, from here (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002164729_irangender30.html)

Iran isn't the only Muslim society that appears to be growing more accepting of sex changes while still shunning homosexuality. A Kuwaiti court recently decreed that a 29-year-old man who had changed his gender could live legally as a woman. That decision was later overturned by a higher court, but it provoked a startling debate in a country where the subject of homosexuality remains taboo.

No Muslim society has tackled the question with the open-mindedness of Shiite Iran. That's probably because the father of the revolution himself, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, penned the groundbreaking "fatwas" that approved gender reassignment four decades ago.

[John Mace]

elucidator, I hate the phrases "man trapped in a woman's body", "male body with a woman's soul", etc. I am a biological anthropologist heavily on the biological side and I don't believe in souls. If that is how it was explained to you then I can see why you would reject it. I would've rejected it if it was presented to me like that. I'll be sure to work within the trans community to get people away from using those phrases. The hard part would be coming up with a better short explanation for what it actually is. Do you think you would be more inclined to believe it if you were only presented with scientific explanations and evidence?
The other problem is that most people do believe in souls, so that actually helps them understand. Perhaps when we better understand the developmental processes that lead to a "female brain" and a "male brain", we can present this in better scientific terms. But even then, we fall into the trap of insisting that things be put in one box or another. Is it a boy or a girl? Well, the problem is that there are more than two boxes (or, more likely, a continuum). In fact, almost nothing in biology is a simply dichotomy. It really should be no surprise that these human-coneived models that we impose on the biological world break down on closer examination.

Go check out the "what is a fish" thread in GQ right now. We need to look at the biological world as it is, not as it appears thru our preconceived ideas.

[elucidator]

Well, paint my butt blue and call me Shirley! The Ayatollah Khomeini? No shit! Never would have believed it in a million years.

Glad to have arrived at an amicable meeting of minds. More tea?

[matt_mcl]

Well, paint my butt blue and call me Shirley! The Ayatollah Khomeini? No shit! Never would have believed it in a million years.

Glad to have arrived at an amicable meeting of minds. More tea?

I'll have some pear white, but only if you would address my post, please.

[kimera]

I found this video (http://www.current.tv/video/?id=4005294) about transsexuality in Iran. It contains interviews with transsexuals currently living in Iran.

That's a very good point John Mace, I didn't think about that.

[elucidator]

I'll have some pear white, but only if you would address my post, please.
Don't know what "pear white" is, Matt. If I drink some, it won't, like, do something to me, or anything, right? Not that there's anything wrong with that! Its just, well, a little late in the game to change jerseys, ya know?

And "address your post"? Like post #345, addressed specificly to you? Shitfire, brother, that post is longer than my attention span! You lost me, advise.

[matt_mcl]

It's Celestial Seasonings. Yeah, pretty gay. And my post is #350.

[elucidator]

Sorry, don't know how I missed it. Right there it was. And Celestial Seasonings is gay? Oh, crap, does this mean I can't buy my socks by the bag at K-Mart anymore?

I accept that what have differences of opinion here, and that they are not likely to be any more resolved than they are. When I say I am an ally of the community, I certainly don't mean to the extent that you are, and that is unlikely for a myriad of reasons.

Sweet Jesus, Matt there's a gazillion goddam communities out there, have a heart! I'm only one man! A damn smart one, sure, but still.... Cut me some slack here, OK? I mean, you walk down the streets, how many people do you see walking along and pondering the fate of the transgendered community?

If nothing will satisfy but a committment that matches your own, I'm afraid there simply isn't any chance that's going to happen. Its not that I don't care, its that I don't care as much. There ain't that much of me to go around! Fishes and loaves only works for Jesus, and I'm not even Jewish. If the good wishes and support I offer is sufficient for your respect, I'm glad, if not.....que sera, sera.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

But it does, Blanche, it does. So much of this -- and you really must trust me on this, for all the LGBT demystification education I've done -- is based, as I said, on awareness and acceptance of people's own account of themselves. That's exactly what the trans community is fighting for: to have their own account of themselves accepted.

For myself, this is the hardest part. I think of myself as mildly to moderately gendered: if I were to describe myself, "male" would not be in the top ten descriptors. It's just not amazingly important to me. I don't imagine that I'd be that different were I female.

So when people talk about feeling as if they're the wrong gender, it doesn't make visceral sense to me. What does it mean to feel like a male, or feel like a female? I just can't grok.

There are a lot of things I can't grok, though. My inability to grok it doesn't mean that I can't accept that the seriously gendered folks are telling me the truth.

Their experience of their gender is real, just as real as my lackadaisical experience of mine. As long as they don't tell me that I really do feel like I'm male, I won't tell them that they really don't.

Daniel

[matt_mcl]

I accept that what have differences of opinion here, and that they are not likely to be any more resolved than they are. When I say I am an ally of the community, I certainly don't mean to the extent that you are, and that is unlikely for a myriad of reasons.

I wasn't referring to the extent of time and energy - just the basic acceptance of the same goals.

To be a trans ally, you don't have to run for office or spend your nights writing press releases or flyer-poster all day or otherwise storm the barricades. But you do have to accept that they are who and what they say they are and not second-guess them. It's the irreducible element of trans acceptance. Left Hand of Dorkness talked about it pretty well.

[elucidator]

Well, sure, within the parameters outlined by Kimera above, no prob, Bob.

That's it? I can go out and play now?

[John Mace]

For myself, this is the hardest part. I think of myself as mildly to moderately gendered: if I were to describe myself, "male" would not be in the top ten descriptors. It's just not amazingly important to me. I don't imagine that I'd be that different were I female.

So when people talk about feeling as if they're the wrong gender, it doesn't make visceral sense to me. What does it mean to feel like a male, or feel like a female? I just can't grok.
Perhaps it doesn't seem important because you don't have any questions about it. You're male, and that's it. If you weren't sure, then it would rise in importance level, don't you think?

[Excalibre]

Perhaps it doesn't seem important because you don't have any questions about it. You're male, and that's it. If you weren't sure, then it would rise in importance level, don't you think?
I think that was what Leftie was getting at. I've actually discovered exactly the same thing; I once related to a trans friend of mine that, if I'm not thinking about it, my gender is completely off my radar. There have been a couple times where it's actually taken me a moment to remember what sex I am - it's such an irrelevant matter to me that I just never really think about it. And my friend was shocked - there she is, saving up for sex reassignment surgery, visiting a psychiatrist so she can be prescribed hormones, and of course her gender is an absolutely central thing to her. It's a big issue in her mind because it's a big issue in her life; going around with a penis when you ought to have a vagina has got to weigh on your mind some.

I'm pretty sure Leftie was just explaining why it's not immediately obvious what an important thing this is to some people - I'm pretty sure he wasn't trying to say it isn't actually an important thing.

[Miller]

Would it have made sense, then, for the DFL to become the Democratic Farmer Labor Negro party? Surely, it would lend much desired respectability and "face" to colored folks within the party, but at what cost? Given that the widest appeal brings the most power, and power furthers the movement toward freedom and justice? After all, the colored folks are already on board, no further outreach is required, they have the good sense to know who is most on their side. Not wholly committed, not waking up every morning wondering how to advance the cause of colored folks, but most. And, of course, if they had done, they would have run the risk of alienating some portion of the voters, diluting their power and weakening their capacity to help.

This really doesn't map well to the issue of LGBT rights. Historically, the biggest challenge that gay rights has had to overcome is one of visibility. This was not a problem for blacks: a black person only had to look in the mirror to understand how he was "different" from mainstream white society. He could look around his family and neighborhood and see plenty of other people who look like him. Visibility wasn't an issue for race-based civil rights, because race is our most visible distinguishing characteristic. For issues related to sexuality, this is not as easy. If you read coming out testimonials, particularly those from before the emergence of gay rights as a potent political force, you'll be struck by how often the discovery of the term "homosexual" came as a revelation to people. Accounts of people reading about gays for the first time and having the epiphany, "That's what I am!" are very common. This holds true for transexuals, as well. It's important that the gay rights movement include all the flavors of alternative sexuality not just as a way of convincing straight America that we deserve rights, but also to let those who are still closeted or confused as to what they are know that there are other people like them in the world. If the gay rights movement were to present itself as strictly a gay rights movement, and not put transexual rights onto their public agenda, a large portion of the transexuals out there are simply not going to see it as a movement that includes them, and remain isolated and politically powerless.


If you present the "trans experience" to me as it were originally: that is, a person of one gender in the body of another, I cannot grasp it, it makes no sense that a fully formed gender identity could be implanted in the body of the opposite gender, it borders on metaphysics. I would call that an "illusion" or even a "delusion". It just ain't so, it can't be so!

Now, if we simply alter the definition to say "tranny" to mean people who experience themselves as if they were of another gender....problem solved.

I'm afraid I don't understand the distinction you're trying to make here. Both paragraphs seem to be saying exactly the same thing to me.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

I'm pretty sure Leftie was just explaining why it's not immediately obvious what an important thing this is to some people - I'm pretty sure he wasn't trying to say it isn't actually an important thing.
Nope--to me, it's really NOT very important. As a teenager I was terrified of being androgynous, but at some point I thought, "So what if I am?" and life became a lot easier for me.

I've felt more gendered as I grow older, but it's still not especially important to me. I'm not going to get SRS, but that's because it'd complicate my life, probably reduce sexual sensation, and be painful as hell, not because the idea of being a woman is weird to me.

It's funny, though: I think most folks feel gendered more heavily than I do, and so (without meaning any offense at all), folks try to understand what I'm saying as if I'm saying I don't question my gender, instead of understanding it as what I'm actually saying. I think that most folks' gender identity is so ingrained that it's very difficult to viscerally understand a different approach to it.

Daniel

[John Mace]

Nope--to me, it's really NOT very important. As a teenager I was terrified of being androgynous, but at some point I thought, "So what if I am?" and life became a lot easier for me.

I've felt more gendered as I grow older, but it's still not especially important to me. I'm not going to get SRS, but that's because it'd complicate my life, probably reduce sexual sensation, and be painful as hell, not because the idea of being a woman is weird to me.

It's funny, though: I think most folks feel gendered more heavily than I do, and so (without meaning any offense at all), folks try to understand what I'm saying as if I'm saying I don't question my gender, instead of understanding it as what I'm actually saying. I think that most folks' gender identity is so ingrained that it's very difficult to viscerally understand a different approach to it.

Daniel
Well, that explains a facet of your username that I never thought of before! :)

[lissener]

I'll have some pear white, but only if you would address my post, please.
Ohmygod I LOVE Pear White. And of course it's gay; it's only one L away from the greatest action star (http://www.gildasattic.com/pearl.html) of the silent screen. Plus it's my new stage name! But only because I'm pasty white and shaped like a pear. . . .

[matt_mcl]

I've felt more gendered as I grow older, but it's still not especially important to me. I'm not going to get SRS, but that's because it'd complicate my life, probably reduce sexual sensation, and be painful as hell, not because the idea of being a woman is weird to me.

It's funny, though: I think most folks feel gendered more heavily than I do, and so (without meaning any offense at all), folks try to understand what I'm saying as if I'm saying I don't question my gender, instead of understanding it as what I'm actually saying. I think that most folks' gender identity is so ingrained that it's very difficult to viscerally understand a different approach to it.

Cool. I've heard from a fair number of people who truly don't feel much identification with the gender they usually identify as, whether to the point of IDing as androgynous or nongendered, or just IDing on the basis of their genitals and not much else. It certainly stands to reason that some people would have a greater or lesser sense of gender.

I spend a lot of time without a particular feeling of gender myself. Other times, when I do feel my gender, it's apparent that I'm feeling something very different from the sensation that other men identify as "feeling like a man," which is part of the reason I ID as genderqueer.

[El Cid Viscoso]

I've felt more gendered as I grow older, but it's still not especially important to me.That's just your testicles dropping. I assure you it's perfectly normal.

[El Cid Viscoso]

I spend a lot of time without a particular feeling of gender myself. Other times, when I do feel my gender, it's apparent that I'm feeling something very different from the sensation that other men identify as "feeling like a man," which is part of the reason I ID as genderqueer.I am unable to understand this. I want to understand it. Can you explain?

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

I am unable to understand this. I want to understand it. Can you explain?
First, ha-ha about the testicles dropping.

Second, are you right-handed? If you woke up tomorrow lefthanded, would it devastate your self-image? Do you ascribe a set of personality traits to being right-handed, and do you sneer at right-handed people who do not have those traits?

That's about how I feel about gender. I am left-handed, but if I woke up tomorrow as a right-handed person, it wouldn't have a great impact on my identity.

Daniel

[El Cid Viscoso]

First, ha-ha about the testicles dropping.I'm glad you took it the way I meant it.Second, are you right-handed?Actually, I've always been ambidextrous, dominantly right-handed. I'm a lot more left-Able now than I was last year, though. (Jesus, I hope I'm not stumbling into some kind of lurid innuendo here. Evil Captor, can I get a ruling?)

I guess I just don't understand your analogy.

[Excalibre]

Cool. I've heard from a fair number of people who truly don't feel much identification with the gender they usually identify as, whether to the point of IDing as androgynous or nongendered, or just IDing on the basis of their genitals and not much else. It certainly stands to reason that some people would have a greater or lesser sense of gender.

I spend a lot of time without a particular feeling of gender myself. Other times, when I do feel my gender, it's apparent that I'm feeling something very different from the sensation that other men identify as "feeling like a man," which is part of the reason I ID as genderqueer.
Yeah, I've long figured that I'm some variety of genderqueer. I don't particularly feel "male" most of the time (it's enough of a revelation when I actually do something "manly" that I actually wrote about one such experience in this thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=387806).) I actually think if I could wave a magic wand and become female, with fully functioning genitalia (and preferably not with broad, manly shoulders) and so forth, I would consider it. I have no particular discomfort with my wang or any feeling that it doesn't belong, but I think "IDing on the basis of [my] genitals and not much else" is a pretty accurate description of my approach to the whole thing.

[matt_mcl]

I am unable to understand this. I want to understand it. Can you explain?

You're assuming I fully understand it ;) Hm. I have occasionally felt a very strong sense of my gender. It seems to me to have the same impact on other men when they identify "feeling like a man." But it seems to be quite different from feelings so identified.

Most men, even if they're not at all stereotypically macho, seem to share some kinds of experiences that they regard as being essentially masculine, or somehow affirming their masculinity in a positive way. I don't share any such experience. When other men have tried to include me as "one of the guys," it's fallen completely flat. It's not just a matter of not being interested in the activity - it's a feeling of who ARE these people?

Men in general seem to have this thing of a sense of their masculinity or maleness, however defined, which I don't really have to anywhere near the same extent; in its place there's this unusual bunch of feelings and impulses that seem to be my gender.

[John Mace]

I burp and fart a lot.

[kaylasdad99]

But do you brag about it afterward?

[Miller]

Brag about it? He posts about it on an international message board!

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

Brag about it? He posts about it on an international message board!But is he scratching his nutsack while he types?

[John Mace]

I think we've begun to milk the chimp (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=391436) on this subject.

[rayh]

But is he scratching his nutsack while he types?

Has he still got one?

[RedFury]

I burp and fart a lot.

I don't. But without even noticing my hands are always going to my nuts. (not even sure if I do it in public). As for feeling male, well, as a kid/young man, yeah, BIG TIME. I mean I just LOVED being a guy, chasing women and being a jock to boot. I remember thinking all the time just how lucky I was for being one. Now, not so much -- after reading this thread and what with fuckin' alimony and child support, sex change doesn't sound so bad.

Anyway, quite an informative thread. Still trying to get some concepts into my thick skull, but hey if the surgery works as some your cites have shown and it truly makes some people lead better lives...go for it!

Well then, now that this one is winding down 'luc, how's about you start another one on penile implants, pumps, meds and aphrodisiacs.

Mayhaps we could learn a thing or two there as well ;)

[John Mace]

Most men, even if they're not at all stereotypically macho, seem to share some kinds of experiences that they regard as being essentially masculine, or somehow affirming their masculinity in a positive way. I don't share any such experience. When other men have tried to include me as "one of the guys," it's fallen completely flat. It's not just a matter of not being interested in the activity - it's a feeling of who ARE these people?

Men in general seem to have this thing of a sense of their masculinity or maleness, however defined, which I don't really have to anywhere near the same extent; in its place there's this unusual bunch of feelings and impulses that seem to be my gender.
In all seriousness, I think it has to do with how we relate to different groups, and how we establish ourselves in hierarchies within those groups. We are, afterall, just another social primate species. If I'm in a group with women, there's always a very different kind of tension/dynamic going on than if it's just men. Some of this may be cultural, but from what I've read on the subject, I think most of it isn't. If each of us were alone on a desert island, I don't think we'd feel particularly male or female.

[elucidator]

...Well then, now that this one is winding down 'luc, how's about you start another one on penile implants, pumps, meds and aphrodisiacs.

Mayhaps we could learn a thing or two there as well ;)
Gee, what a swell idea, Rojo. No, really, thanks so much! But what I was really hoping for was a pony. With anthrax, if at all possible.

[susan]

what with fuckin' alimony and child support, sex change doesn't sound so bad.I'm pretty sure it wouldn't get you out of the alimony and child support, brother.

[kaylasdad99]

Apparently not automatically, anyway. (http://cbs4.com/local/local_story_279164001.html)

[elucidator]

:dubious:

Speak for yourself, pal.
Of course, most men would prefer to be a horse, a lot for a man to envy in a horse.

[Miller]

Of course, most men would prefer to be a horse, a lot for a man to envy in a horse.

It's really not all it's cracked up to be.

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

Of course, most men would prefer to be a horse, a lot for a man to envy in a horse.
Unless, of course, you're the cowpoke in the old joke who remembered too late he was riding Old Bess.

Could be worse, could be a gelding.

[RedFury]

Apparently not automatically, anyway. (http://cbs4.com/local/local_story_279164001.html)


Holy guacamole! Trust I didn't break yet another can of beans with my off the cuff comment. :eek:

I swear, some of this stuff makes my brain hurt.

[ambushed]

But, like being gay, there is no known genetic [or] biological cause.I'm not quite sure what you mean by that. Sure, no one yet has been able to uneqivocally identify which specific genes are involved, but since there is strong evidence that male homosexuality (at least) has a very real genetic/biological component (whether within the subject or the subject's mother), that is almost certainly only a temporary state of ignorance.

Would you agree?

[ambushed]

The British Medical Journal is a legitimate scientific publication, and not a bastion of political correctness as far as I'm aware.I'm not so sure. I've read some ridiculously absurd, anti-scientific articles in the BMJ. For example, many vigorous defenses of HIV "dissenters" such as that bottomlessly evil douchebag Duesberg.

My hunch is that the BMJ doesn't have nearly the same level of prestige as, say, JAMA (not to be parochial; I just don't know which British medical journals are equally respected).

[ambushed]

That was a noble effort, Weirdy (and welcome back) but I fear it's all for naught. The PC Gestappo isn't satisified with mere tolerance and political alliance. They'll settle for nothing less than absolute adherence to the hive mind. It's not enough to agree with them, you must agree with them for exactly the same reasons, be offended by exactly the same things, and perceive things subjectively exactly the same way. You are never permitted to have any unauthorized philosophical doubts or private squicks. It's not enough to say that somthing should be allowable or legal, you have to like it as well or you're a "bigot."

. . .

Man, when elucidator is no longer liberal enough for this board, that's saying something.Assuming you're over 18, can I tell you how much I love you?

[ambushed]

It's my movement. Obviously different queers will disagree on this but, frankly, my opinions about queer rights come from the experience of being queer, while you are on the outside and watching. You might have insightful things to say (I'll let you know if I spot any) but this fundamentally is not your movement. I appreciate straight people who support equal rights for queers; I don't think you have the right to tell us how we should seek them, though. (Note also that Miller, lissener, and I are all queer - and note that the folks agreeing with you are not; this should tell you something about how much you really can understand the queer movement from the outside.)Well, I'm queer, and on the very narrow and specific point about whether it's wisest to include the transgendered and the rest of the whole kit and kaboodle in the "gay rights" movement, I tend to agree with elucidator, even though I wouldn't put it quite the way he did.

In any event, I've started a GD thread to further explore this specific issue: Must the Gay Rights Movement Include the Transgendered? (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=7858041)

[susan]

there is strong evidence that male homosexuality (at least) has a very real genetic/biological componentI'd like to amend this statement by saying that there is some evidence that some instances of male homosexuality have a genetic component. Even in MZ twin studies, although the concordance rate is higher than for DZ twins, the number of pairs whose sexual orientations differ is still larger than those that are the same.

[Excalibre]

Well, I'm queer, and on the very narrow and specific point about whether it's wisest to include the transgendered and the rest of the whole kit and kaboodle in the "gay rights" movement, I tend to agree with elucidator, even though I wouldn't put it quite the way he did.

In any event, I've started a GD thread to further explore this specific issue: Must the Gay Rights Movement Include the Transgendered? (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=7858041)
You have the right to your opinion, though I think matt_mcl has offered pretty good reasons for why it's ultimately harmful to us. Nevertheless, there's always differences of opinion as to how we should pursue the changes we're seeking; I frankly think it's presumptuous for a straight person to refer to it as "our" movement or to tell queer people how we should proceed - particularly when he's so obviously arguing from ignorance.

[John Mace]

I'm not quite sure what you mean by that. Sure, no one yet has been able to uneqivocally identify which specific genes are involved, but since there is strong evidence that male homosexuality (at least) has a very real genetic/biological component (whether within the subject or the subject's mother), that is almost certainly only a temporary state of ignorance.

Would you agree?
Twin studies show about a 50% genetic component, although the exact mechanism is unknown. The strongest evidence for a biological basis is the increased likelkihood of homsexuality depending on your birth order-- more older brothers -> more likely to be gay. But even then, the increased likelihood is still small. Mainly, though, what I meant was that we don't have any clue as to what the biological mechanism is. Is it genetic? Is it hormonal? Is it pre-natal? We have some guesses, but no real unerstanding. I do agree that from what we know, there almost certainly is a biological explanation, but we just don't know what it is, and we also don't know if there is any non-biological agent at work as well.

[elucidator]

You have the right to your opinion, though I think matt_mcl has offered pretty good reasons for why it's ultimately harmful to us....
Yes, he has. The issue isn't resolved. Probably can't be, its not like determining the boiling point of water, its all opinion.

...Nevertheless, there's always differences of opinion as to how we should pursue the changes we're seeking...
As well there should be.

...I frankly think it's presumptuous for a straight person to refer to it as "our" movement or to tell queer people how we should proceed - particularly when he's so obviously arguing from ignorance.
So...if you're about to bike to a rally, and somethings screwed up with the gears, and a guy offers a suggestion on how to fix it....you gonna ask him if he's straight?

I think that's kinda dumb. YMMV.

[Excalibre]

So...if you're about to bike to a rally, and somethings screwed up with the gears, and a guy offers a suggestion on how to fix it....you gonna ask him if he's straight?

I think that's kinda dumb. YMMV.
What in the world are you talking about? Are you high? When you come down, re-read this. Because man, are you going to be embarrassed that you said something so stupid.

Oh my God! I broke the code! All your aww shucks mannerisms and phony folksiness - it's all to hide the fact that you just plain have no idea what's going on around you!

Wait a second . . . are you the president, elucidator?

[Miller]

So...if you're about to bike to a rally, and somethings screwed up with the gears, and a guy offers a suggestion on how to fix it....you gonna ask him if he's straight?

No, but I might ask him if he's ever ridden a bike before.

[Excalibre]

No, but I might ask him if he's ever ridden a bike before.
Heehee . . . riding. 'luci, you ever ridden another man before?

[elucidator]

Sure! Played "horsey" with my grandfather. Which is more answer than your question deserves.

[rayh]

Sure! Played "horsey" with my grandfather. Which is more answer than your question deserves.

I sense a new euphemism here.

[ambushed]

I'd like to amend this statement by saying that there is some evidence that some instances of male homosexuality have a genetic component.Perhaps it's a matter of semantics, but I stand by my expression of it as "strong' evidence. If nothing else, there's at least strong evidence that there's some genetic contribution to male homosexuality. The contrary position smacks of extreme environmentalism. I'm sufficiently convinced by the prevailing evidence and theories of the link between genetics and sexual behavior to strongly hold that there must be a strong genetic contribution to male homosexuality. Nothing that biologically fundamental can be solely the result of cultural environment! And that leaves biology, which in turn leaves genetics.

Naturally, absolute genetic determinism is as absurd in this context as extreme environmentalism. In humans, there's almost always a mixture. But to argue that even in even only some cases of genuine male homosexuality (as opposed to mere homosexual behavior) there is no biological/genetic component seems to me to be pretty much on a par with mysticism (I'm a materialist/physicalist).

Even in MZ twin studies, although the concordance rate is higher than for DZ twins, the number of pairs whose sexual orientations differ is still larger than those that are the same.That's not what I understand. See, for example, John Mace's post, # 401 (to which I will reply soon). I understand that the MZ concordance rate is at least 50%, but I believe that percentage is too low due to the fact this data comes from self-reports, which tend strongly toward under-reporting of feelings, opinions, and behavior that is outside the social norm. In any event, even 50% concordance is powerfully compelling evidence of a genetic contribution. By far the most likely scenario is that all MZ twins possess the genetic predisposition for full, 100% concordance but that full expression is dependent on one or more environmental factors (i.e., not necessarily cultural environment, but also the environment of the mother's womb and so forth).

[ambushed]

Twin studies show about a 50% genetic component, although the exact mechanism is unknown. The strongest evidence for a biological basis is the increased likelkihood of homsexuality depending on your birth order-- more older brothers -> more likely to be gay. But even then, the increased likelihood is still small. Mainly, though, what I meant was that we don't have any clue as to what the biological mechanism is.I'm sure we agree substantially, if not completely. But may I assume that last is a bit of casual hyperbole? Surely we have plenty of clues. What we mostly lack is a coherent theory which unifies the various evidence, it seems to me. And for that we need more data. Yet, wouldn't you agree with my earlier prediction that this is only a temporary ignorance?

I put the current state of understanding in the same basic category as late 18'th century physics. There was every reason to believe in atoms and molecules, but the necessary data and theory were temporarily lacking. I see this situation as a parallel: there's every reason to believe in a genetic basis for male homosexuality, but we haven't yet acquired all the necessary data and theory to establish it for certain. But that lack in no way justifies pure social environmentalist claims, as I'm sure you'd agree.

Is it genetic? Is it hormonal? Is it pre-natal?Well, you might consider this too reductionist, but aren't hormones and the pre-natal environment ultimately genetic? Sure, there's a complex interplay with the more-or-less social environment, such as with the substances the mother consumes and other aspects of her physical and emotional state, but doesn't that ultimately entail either the child's or the mother's genes (or both)? You see, my focus is on the contribution of evolution to homosexuality, at least male homosexuality. Something this central and fundamental must have been a target of natural selection, and thus it must have evolved, and thus it must be genetic in nature, even if it is not exclusively genetic. I honestly don't see any realistic alternative.

[susan]

I don't disagree that there may be a genetic component in some cases. I'm trying to contribute to clarity and specificity in service to the thread.

[John Mace]

I'm sure we agree substantially, if not completely. But may I assume that last is a bit of casual hyperbole? Surely we have plenty of clues. What we mostly lack is a coherent theory which unifies the various evidence, it seems to me. And for that we need more data. Yet, wouldn't you agree with my earlier prediction that this is only a temporary ignorance?
Yes, it was hyperbole. We have clues, but I'm not aware of any concensus view among biologists for what the mechanism is or if there are multiple mechanisms.

I put the current state of understanding in the same basic category as late 18'th century physics. There was every reason to believe in atoms and molecules, but the necessary data and theory were temporarily lacking. I see this situation as a parallel: there's every reason to believe in a genetic basis for male homosexuality, but we haven't yet acquired all the necessary data and theory to establish it for certain. But that lack in no way justifies pure social environmentalist claims, as I'm sure you'd agree.
Not quite. There is every reason to believe that genetics plays a part, maybe even a major part, but it does appear that there are other factors as well.

Well, you might consider this too reductionist, but aren't hormones and the pre-natal environment ultimately genetic? Sure, there's a complex interplay with the more-or-less social environment, such as with the substances the mother consumes and other aspects of her physical and emotional state, but doesn't that ultimately entail either the child's or the mother's genes (or both)? You see, my focus is on the contribution of evolution to homosexuality, at least male homosexuality. Something this central and fundamental must have been a target of natural selection, and thus it must have evolved, and thus it must be genetic in nature, even if it is not exclusively genetic. I honestly don't see any realistic alternative.
We can quibble about whether all those are genetic, but I think when most people think of a genetic cause, they are thinking that there is something in the genetic makeup of the gay person himself. I mean, we can say that everything biological is genetic, but that's not very imformative.

As for evolution, remember that you can't assume that because X trait exists, that X trait has some survival value and has been selected for. All you can argue is that it hasn't been selected against (to such a great degere that it no longer exists). And when it comes to behavior, there are so many complex interactions that focusing on one narrow behavioral trait can be misleading. For instance, whenever we talk about homosexuality and evolution, someone will bring up the babysitter hypothesis (gays were babysitters, and therefore added to survival of their relatives, if not themselves). Frankly, that's highly implausible. I don't want to replay that debate here, but there are plenty of threads to look at if you are interested in way I say it's implausible.

If I had to guess (and this would only be a guess), I would think that homosexuality is a byproduct of some other behavioral trait(s) that was (were) instrumental in the success of modern humans. Humans form a wide array of relationships with their fellow humans, and maybe the biological mechanisms that enable those relationships to form sometimes produce individuals who are inclined to pair-bond with members of their own gender. And I think it's important to focus not so much on the sex acts but on the pair-bonding aspects of homosexual behavior when discussing homosexuality and evolution. People love to cite bonobo behavior as an example of non-human homosexuality, but bonobos don't form pari-bonds like humans do. They engage in any number of sex acts, many with their own sex, as a way of maintaining social cohesion in the group as a whole, but that's quite different from forming a pair-bond, or "falling in love" if you want to call it that, with another individual.

[ambushed]

I don't disagree that there may be a genetic component in some cases. I'm trying to contribute to clarity and specificity in service to the thread.Well, I guess this thread isn't the place for a significant debate on the issue, but saying that there merely "may" be a genetic component in merely "some" cases (of male homosexuality) is considerably understating things. And I'm not sure how that serves the thread.

[ambushed]

Not quite. There is every reason to believe that genetics plays a part, maybe even a major part, but it does appear that there are other factors as well.In that, we agree entirely, as we do on nearly every aspect of this issue. But you are aware I've already said exactly that, right?

We can quibble about whether all those are genetic, but I think when most people think of a genetic cause, they are thinking that there is something in the genetic makeup of the gay person himself. I mean, we can say that everything biological is genetic, but that's not very imformative.Perhaps, but it's still very important to point that out, I believe. It must be said because it must be made clear that it is not purely social-environmental, or arguably even predominantly, as far too many in the social sciences still contend.

As for evolution, remember that you can't assume that because X trait exists, that X trait has some survival value and has been selected for. That's undeniably true as a general matter, but human sexuality and pair-bonding behavior, it seems to me, must have been a matter for selection and evolution. In my view and understanding, the closer a behavior relates to the raw, basic fundamentals of life, the greater the degree of genetic contribution. So that human sexuality, like eating and drinking, is almost certainly tied very strongly to genetics and hence selection.

And when it comes to behavior, there are so many complex interactions that focusing on one narrow behavioral trait can be misleading. For instance, whenever we talk about homosexuality and evolution, someone will bring up the babysitter hypothesis (gays were babysitters, and therefore added to survival of their relatives, if not themselves). Frankly, that's highly implausible. I don't want to replay that debate here, but there are plenty of threads to look at if you are interested in way I say it's implausible.I'll have to try to find them (but I'd be grateful if you could provide a link). Because I find the kin-selection hypothesis incredibly compelling, as do several brilliant evolutionary thinkers such as E. O. Wilson.

And I think it's important to focus not so much on the sex acts but on the pair-bonding aspects of homosexual behavior when discussing homosexuality and evolution.Absolutely! Wonderful. Except for the kin-selection hypothesis, we're very close in our thinking on this matter.
Thanks for taking the time to discuss this with me.

[susan]

Well, I guess this thread isn't the place for a significant debate on the issue, but saying that there merely "may" be a genetic component in merely "some" cases (of male homosexuality) is considerably understating things. And I'm not sure how that serves the thread.I don't think I'm saying anything inflamatory when I say that this thread has veered toward some hyperbole and overstatement. I made my statement in order to assert my belief that as I read the research, there is some evidence for a genetic component in some cases, but that I do not agree that evidence will ultimately be found to explain all cases. I do not think that there is a single explanation for how people turn out. This holds for LGB and for trans folks. I believe that this serves this thread by providing a perspective that does not rely on an argument of extremes to make a point. YMMV.

[John Mace]

I don't think I'm saying anything inflamatory when I say that this thread has veered toward some hyperbole and overstatement. I made my statement in order to assert my belief that as I read the research, there is some evidence for a genetic component in some cases, but that I do not agree that evidence will ultimately be found to explain all cases. I do not think that there is a single explanation for how people turn out. This holds for LGB and for trans folks. I believe that this serves this thread by providing a perspective that does not rely on an argument of extremes to make a point. YMMV.
I agree. I don't think we can rule out environmental factors completely. Who knows-- maybe it's some combination of genetic and environmental factors that determine a person's sexual orientaion and/or gender identity. Maybe in some cases it's entirely genetic and in some cases it's entirely environmental. We just don't know.

ambushed: I think that for the purposes of this thread we're pretty much in agreement. I know that Wilson is on record about what I call the "baby sitter" hypothesis, but it just doesn't stand up to close scrutiny. Where is the evidence for that behavior in hunter/gatherer societies that we've studied over the years? It's pure speculation with no empirical evidence.