Are you saying I mistreat transsexuals? How, exactly, am I doing that? :rolleyes:
After reading this thread and all related links, the line of Horace comes to mind.
"Parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus’’
Which, roughly translated, is “that’s a mighty big storm in a very little teacup”.
His4Ever, you are a poor excuse for a christian.
Thank you for doing so. I understand your point of view, and I’m not going to say that you are entirely wrong, because I was not closely reading everything around those remarks.
I do want to respond to one thing, however, jsut as a point of debate, not an actual dissection of JD’s character and intent:
I disagree with your assertion.
a) stops being obvious once someone is openly discussing and acknowledging their status.
d) Although I did not read everything in that thread, from what I have read and had explained to me, I can completely understand why she said it. She was attempting, I think, to bolster her own argument that you can’t change your sex, and she was using her perception of Eve as an example. Makes perfect sense. (not arguing the relative rudeness or value of her argument, just her point in saying what she said)
As for B & C, well…do you really go through life believing that no one discusses you when you are not around? You cannot possibly, can you? And do you actually consider all conversation between a husband and wife about anyone who is not in the room to be “gossip”, and telling someone later that you have had that discussion is a terrible thing to do?
Because I do not share that worldview at all, not even close, so it is incredibly easy for me, at least, to believe that b & c are true.
I will clarify again that I am not arguing for JD’s overall position, by any stretch of the imagination. And I think that beyond that remark she went on to be * deliberately and willfully * rude, mean, and ignorant.
** Stoid** while I don’t go around in life believing that no one talks about me behind my back, I do however, hold the principal that to afterwards make it known to the object of the discussion is the height of rude behavior.
“ya know, when we discussed you behind your back that time, we both agreed that you were really quite unattractive” or whatever. Yep, sure, that passes as ‘polite’ discourse.
and I read the whole exchange.
and you’re also conveniently overlooking the fact that JD posted her ‘innocent’ answer to the question after Eve posted her comment that she wasn’t interested in that answer,
so to continue (metaphorically) to stand on your head with one eye closed and the other one squinting to try and see how maybe, just maybe, there wasn’t an intent to be rude, well, apparently you wish to continue to do so.
I wasn’t aware of any preceding “no, please don’t tell me” warnings from Eve, so I’m not “conveniently” (?) overlooking it. I’ll have to go back and look for what you are referring to.
As for the “behind your back” stuff… you are mixing two things. What if someone said “You know, when we discussed you behind your back that time, we agreed that you were quite beautiful”? Would that be impolite? Seems to me the rude part is the “you are unattractive” part, not the “behind your back” part.
And what the hell does that * mean, * anyway? Seems to me that there is evidently no polite way to discuss someone at all. After all, if you discuss them when they are in the room, you are treating them as though they aren’t. And if they aren’t in the room, any discussion that occurs is “behind their back”, and therefore rude. I’ve heard tell of a few saintly souls who never breathe a word, good or ill, about anyone ever, but they are about as elusive as unicorns.
So… as I thought, you did not read the theads in their entirety.
Until you do, why don’t you shut the hell up.
You have now shown yourself to be an idiot who takes part of a conversation and behaves as if they know what is going on.
Get a cranial rectal extraction done, read the threads fully, and then try and justify/support your clueless posts in this thread.
the ‘rude’ part is telling some one afterwards, if the ‘discussion’ wasn’t completely complimentary. as this wasn’t. Or were you attempting to suggest that commenting that some one appears to be a different gender than they portray themselves, is somehow complimentary?
(the ‘convenient’ part, Stoid is that A. **Eve’s ** comment was in between the ‘question’ and JD’s answer, which you would have known if you’d read her answer for context - you can only get context if you start before the comment, and B some one else mentioned it here just a few posts up. I stand by “convenient”)
** wring ** are you referring to this, which Jersey herself quoted in the very post we are discussing?
Is that the “warning” that you are referring to? Eve was responding to someone else asking Jersey a direct question of how she perceived Eve. And let us not forget, this was the rest of Jersey’s response:
Then she argued her point some more and said:
So it looks to me as if Eve didn’t want to be told that she was a mentally disturbed sicko, and it also looks to me like Jersey did not then go on to call her a mentally disturbed sicko.
Or was it something else?
you need to see what Eve was responding to, for it was the ‘direct question’ that was asked of JD. so, sequence is:
some one asks JD what do you honestly think?
Eve responds (essentially) “I already know what she honestly thinks, and I don’t need to hear it again”.
then JD proceeds to tell her, (again paraphrased) “Oh, no, I don’t think of you as ‘icky’ just not at all female, ya know”.
So, once again since you seem to be having difficulty understanding:
-
PErson A says "what do you really think, JD
-
Eve the object of the question states specifically “I know she thinks negatively of me, I don’t need it to be repeated”.
-
JD comes in and answers the question ‘honestly’, specifically saying ‘Oh, no I don’t think that one negative thing about you, I think this other negative thing about you’
(unless, again, you’re attempting to suggest that telling some one that they appear to be of a different gender than they affirm to is somehow or nother ‘not an insult’ or ‘a positive’ statement)
(hit submit too early)
See, if JD had truly not wished to insult, and wanted to correct the impression that Eve had, she could have simply said (and honestly) “I don’t think of you as icky.”
if she really felt compelled to add more, the polite thing to have done would have been “And since you decline to have me answer that question, I’ll honor your wishes”.
But, instead, JD felt compelled by her ‘honesty’ or whatever, to add in the non essential information, that Eve and the rest of us, found so gratuitously insulting.
You know better. I have called it rude at least once, impolite, tacky I believe, clumsy and stupid. What I have objected to, and still object to, is calling it, as some have “unbelievably cruel”. And again, she * ** did not ** * say that Eve “appeared to be a different gender than she protrayed herself”. She said she suspected that Eve * could * be transgendered, * and she wasn’t even sure why she thought so. * Some people here seem to be equating that with saying to Eve “You look like a linebacker in a dress”, which it simply wasn’t. And as long as we’re here fighting ignorance, I felt the need to point that out.
of course, you’re not admitting into evidence JDs further statements.
but, I also disagree that her comment (“I thought she might be transgendered” would not be perceived as an insult to anyone.
the possabilities are:
-
the person was transgendered. How on earth is it not insulting, cruel, unkind, rude etc. to affirmatively point out to some one that you thought so especially after they’d pointedly declined to hear ‘what you really thought’.
-
The person wasn’t transgendered. Again, how on earth is it not insulting, unkind, rude etc to suggest to some one that their gender is so oblique as to be in question?
Bottom line to me, there’s some areas of life that I feel it’s impolite to speculate directly to the person involved - their gender, if they’re pregnant etc. are some of them.
I have issues with paraphrasing. Because then you are venturing where you have ventured, which is into the mind and intention of another, and I don’t believe you can legitimately judge people by what you decide you believe they intended. I think the only fair way to have debates and discussions, very most particularly online, where tone and inflection and expressions are not available to us, is to take people’s words at face value.
Of course, you can suspect all you want, and take your suspicions into account, but it’s simply not fair to say “I know what you meant”, espcially if you are saying so by comparing someone else to your own particular standards.
I don’t think it is even truly fair to look at anything JD said later, after her shit had been throughly jumped, to assess her intentions in what she had said before. She felt very attacked, she got defensive, and she got shitty. That’s so common it barely deserves mention.
But even apart from that…I said when I waded in here that I was taking issue with the portrayal of the words themselves. I have no dog in this fight (I can’t believe I said that…too much Dr. Phil). I’m not JD’s good pal looking to make excuses for her. I was just being driven batty by what I believe to be a gross overstatement of the meaning of a particular paragraph. All I’m fighting for here is…well, precision. If you think that JD’s entire attitude and willful refusal to accept the scientific and medical realities of TS/TG people, and her willingness to argue it are rude, I’m not going to disagree with you. I just think there needs to be a distinction drawn. That’s all.
I paraphrased because I didn’t feel like doing all the coding etc. Feel free to replace the specific words, my position remains the same.
And it’s totally appropriate to include her later words if they indeed demonstrate what her intention was (as they do).
In any event, the sequence is:
Poster asks JD a question, of which Eve is the object.
Eve posts “I would not like to hear the answer”.
JD decides to answer anyhow. How on earth is that not rude, insulting etc? Especially given the specific answer? "No, I don’t think of you as ‘icky’. " but going on to demonstrate that she had suspicions on her gender identity.
when is speculation on gender identity not at least mildly offensive? especially when the object specifically declined to have that question answered??
fighting ignorance indeed. I still maintain that it takes metaphorical myopia to a degree beyond what I have physically IRL to not perceive her comments as gratuitously rude, likely to be offensive.
So, you made your point… Is is it that the dissenters are not conforming to your view that is bothering you?
Sorry, I must have missed it then but if you say so, please allow me to retract my statement.
I think it was just truthful. There’s no other way to put it. I wouldn’t be able to date a transgendered person. Maybe Eve finds that offensive, if so I’m truly sorry, I’m sure she must be a great person but that’s how I feel.
Saying you are a post-op TG is different than saying a post-OP TGed has an abnormality. But looking more carefully this wasn’t the focus of the pit thread so I really shouldn’t have said anything. I think the pitting was fully justified.
I agree that it was rude and hurtful to say that, irrespective of her personality.
Pedro: Thanks for the retraction. BTW, there’s no “If I say so,” as my posting is still in that thread.
iampunha: Thanks.
I wouldn’t go that far, but I just wanted to see what the fuss was about.
Well, some of the fuss. The hyperactive fundamentalism defies explanation.