After this OP, the thread took a hard left. However, I am struck by the beauty of this pitting. Minding that I am not commenting on the content, only the witty brevity.
Fuck you. The end. Ha!
I’m going to try this once and only once, as your previous posts in this thread give me grave doubt about your willingness and or ability to understand this.
Sex is a biological fact. And in biological fact, there are 10 sexes: XX, XY, X0 (null), XXX, XXXX, XXXXX, XXY, XXXY, XY/XXY mosaic, and XYY.
Gender is a cultural construct and ‘fact’ that allows two, three, four, or more permutations depending upon the culture. Gender may or may not be related to biological sex depending upon the culture, though there is frequently a correlation between sex and gender.
You’re trying to force another’s gender identity into the narrowly-constrained 1x2 matrix your upbringing has enculturated you to. But in the human experience, gender identity falls somewhere more in a 10x10 matrix.
Perhaps 60 of those boxes would be untenable to the vast majority of cultures on earth. Perhaps another 30 would be untenable to many of the rest. But many cultures other than your own would allow for four, five, or ten.
The 1x2 conception of gender is a relatively new idea, and not at all borne out by the human experience.
As long as you’re presenting false dichotomies, let me propose one. You’ll either be swayed by logic, or you’re a troglodyte. But I’m not tied to invented dichotomies, so if your response contains an iota of logic free of cultural preconceptions I’ll reengage.
That’s all very fascinating, but I don’t see why it means that allowing someone to live as their preferred gender means society is obliged to act as if their biological sex has changed.
Everyone obliges when somebody wishes to be called “Lady Gaga”, “Ke$ha” or “Ringo Starr” even though those are not actually their names.
Since this lenience is granted for marketing purposes, be so kind to do this when it’s a personal request.
And yet, they still have their birth name on their driver’s license (unless they change it, which I have no problem with) and they’re still referred to by their birth name when referring to events that occurred before they assumed that name. Insisting that someone who decides to live as a transgender should retroactively be referred to as such in regards to their entire life is just plain misrepresenting history.
While a trans* person may feel that they never actually were their assigned gender, and to refer to them as such is a complete misrepresentation of who they are.
And I have the creeping suspicion that your issue is not about “misrepresenting history”. You are clearly of the opinion that people not confirming to their birth gender is bullshit.
All right, Smapti, compare this one:
A celebrety has always been thought of as straight. They may have even had some relationships to keep up appearances.
Then, at some point, they decide to come out as gay.
Should we refer to this person as “[person], who had been straight until their coming out as gay on [date]”?
Now, was this person straight before they came out?*
*I am aware that attraction to different genders may change for certain persons over time. Please assume that here, this is not the case.
I would say so, yes.
I’m OK with people not conforming to their birth gender. I take issue with people claiming that the way they choose to live means their sex has changed.
drew870mitchell said that “The sentence is unusually severe compared to all other prosecutions of leaks, including the ones that I could find in the military court system.” Either he didn’t do any actual research or he’s just plain wrong.
Sure, I’m certain there are murderers who got less time in prison than, say, Jonathan Pollard. There are probably white collar criminals who get more time than violent offenders, and vice versa. If you want to start navel-gazing about which crimes are more severe than others, have at it. But it is absolutely clear that, for people convicted of espionage, Manning’s sentence isn’t unusual in any way.
sirens blare, 10 points deducted
Said person was gay all along. For whatever reason, not disclosing that a person is gay means fuckall on wether they are or not.
So suddenly you DO understand the difference between sex and gender.
Nobody has claimed that the sex of private Manning has changed. Nobody has made any statement regarding the contents of private Manning’s underpants, especially since they are not of ANYBODY’S BUSINESS.
Private Manning has kindly asked to be referred to as a woman. That’s all. You stubborn insistence that she should be referred to as a man is a dick move. Nothing more, nothing less.
How many were active duty military personnel also?
I think that’s the biggest thing going here; it’s not like he’s some civilian schlub who gave secrets away for money, he’s a soldier who swore an oath, and then violated that oath and his orders.
Oath text:
The military takes this stuff very seriously; it’s not just that he violated the law, he violated the code and tarnished their name and honor. I’m a little surprised they didn’t hit him with a harder punishment, actually.
Ravenman, I’ll amend my sentence since you seem unwilling to understand the difference between conscience-motivated leaks to the public and performing espionage for a rival state for cash.
Manning’s sentence is unusually severe compared to all previous leaks to the press.
For once Smapti was more spot-on by replying that, after all, Manning did leak far and away the largest quantity of material. If you want to say leak prosecutions should be judged by quantity rather than quality or intent, well, one could make that argument.
Once again, who was it that was convicted of espionage that you are comparing Manning’s sentence to?
Bradley/Chelsea Manning is better than you, sam.
Beautifully articulated.
If Manning wants my tax dollars to CHANGE the contents of those underpants, then yes, those contents might reasonably be construed as my business.
That’s not to say I’m automatically against SRS for this person. However, that doesn’t mean I’m FOR it, either. I’d have to see some compelling evidence one way or another.
But here’s a hint. Getting angry at people because they disagree with you, then letting that anger bleed through into your attempts to convince them they are wrong, ISN’T going to help you convince them.
It involves a paltry fraction of your dollars so no, its not your business.
I don’t know what the law is exactly, but if this can be classified as a medical issue, then neither you nor anyone else except her doctors have a say in what happens. We wouldn’t let taxpayers decide on specific treatments of patients who are in jail, neither should we let them get in the way of sex changes if the law is clear on that issue.
Last I checked, if I pay for it, it’s my business. If you want to refund every penny of Federal income tax I’ve ever paid, I’d be happy to give you a PO Box to mail it to. Otherwise, you are at odds with common sense. SRS is generally only done after years of counseling, and EVEN THEN some patients regret having had the surgery. Given that, I’m under absolutely NO obligation to look the other way on this issue. Doctors are just people, they are not infallible, or anything like it, ESPECIALLY mental health professionals. ROFL
Like I said, I don’t know what the exact law on this is, but if her doctors decide its the appropriate way to go, then they’ll do it over your objections. You can rant all you want, but don’t ever claim that just because YOU don’t like it and you pay taxes, its your business. Its not, medical decisions are business of the patient at the doctor regardless of what anyone else thinks. And if you don’t like that, you are free to leave