Maybe if you were making a real argument and not a vague collection of biased and misinformed assertions…
There are people who die during appendectomies. Does that make an apendectomy inadviable?
Look, I’m really, really trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, here, but I sincerely cannot see any other way to read this passage as saying that transexuals do not deserve equal rights. Or, at the very least, that their rights are not worth fighting for.
Yeah, you are right, including transexuals in the gay rights movement makes it harder to achieve gay rights. But then, so does including really butch lesbians, or really queeny gay men. The closer gays as a whole appear to the baseline of mainstream heterosexual behavior, the easier it is to gain acceptance. But how much can the gay community conform itself to hetero standards in the push for equal rights? Are we only interested in rights for gay men in suits and ties, and lesbians in skirts and lipstick? Or do we include drag queens and diesel dykes? And if we’re including them, why not include transexuals? As you’ve amply demonstrated in this thread, a lot of people can’t distinguish between a man who wants surgery to become a woman, and a man who simply has a lot of feminine mannerisms. Both gays and transexuals face discrimination because they violate gender roles, and straight people find that enormously threatening. The answer to this is not to demand that people in the queer community conform as closely as possible to hetero gender norms. The answer is to change the mainstream perception of what is and is not acceptable gender behavior. To do this, we need every ally we can possibly get. Cutting the trans population loose because they’re “too wierd” is entirely counter-productive. Worse, it is precisely the sort of moral cowardice you’ve just decried. Trans people deserve the same rights as gays who deserve the same rights as straights. Stabbing them in the back to secure our rights would be craven and despicable.
I’m not entirely sure as to the advisability of getting in the middle of this, but here goes.
I think you’re wrong in this. By denying that the surgery helps by bringing mind and body of these people into alignment, you deny the essence of their issue. To use your example (although I fear getting into the biological dimensions, as we’ve already explained that not all transsexualism is adequately explained in biological terms in current science), it’s as if you were telling a patient that their appendix wasn’t really the problem - they should try therapy instead. What you’re doing is denying to transgendered people the right to self-definition. They know what’s going on a lot better than you or I, and if someone who was born physically a man says that she’s really a woman, well, then I have to believe her.
Just for fun, I went back to find examples of the many non-name-calling, non-yelling-at-poor-luci posts in this thread. I found too many to link to just on the first page. Characterizing the tone of the majority of posts that disagree with luci as mere reactionary shrieking is another example of the intellectual dishonesty at work here.
This was the post in which matt’s cite first appeared. It is the only post LilyoftheValley has made to this thread. As far as I can see, it contains no screaming or name calling. So, yeah, I don’t think a nicer tone from me would have got you to listen any better.
What’s the point of even trying? The problem with Diogenes is that he views reality as something constructed out of ideology. And this is a real problem for the world. This is precisely the same attitude that the Bush administration has brought. I keep referencing this because I think this is a bizarre and harmful viewpoint, this notion that what is real depends on ideology. Diogenes apparently doesn’t even understand the desire to actually know what’s true, because he believes that what’s true is only a matter of opinion.
With 'luci, I’m more puzzled. I’m never really surprised to see Diogenes act like an asshole. But I really am surprised to see 'luci acting like a moron. What’s striking is the total lack of insight into his own thinking; he’s absolutely unable to understand the basic idea of evaluating how you know what you know. He simply couldn’t understand what I meant when I asked him to prove that homosexuality exists, because 'luci apparently doesn’t ever try to consider what he believes or why he believes it. I don’t understand this at all; it’s completely natural to me to stop and try to figure out what the basis is for my beliefs and opinions. Whereas 'luci apparently doesn’t do that; he’s not even really willing to consider factual evidence when it conflicts with his prior beliefs.
And yes, Diogenes, I think clinging to a belief that’s unjustifiable in the face of evidence to the contrary is problematic. If you think that matching one’s beliefs about reality to reality itself counts as “PC-ism”, fine. It’s also the only way to rationally look at the world. Maybe one day, you’ll learn how to do that.
Doesn’t bother me in the slightest.
Why do you and Diogenes keep trying to look at this as a matter of “liberal” versus “conservative”? This is a question about reality - whether or not such a thing as transsexuality really exists. We’re talking about the nature of the world around us. It’s telling that people like you and Diogenes aren’t even able to comprehend the idea of simply discussing reality without it being a political, ideological issue.
Reality is not subject to anyone’s ideology, Evil Captor. If someone believes something contrary to reality, it doesn’t matter what their politics are. You and Diogenes and 'luci can continue to claim that a discussion of reality really boils down to “subjective opinion”, but that doesn’t make it so.
Precisely. 'luci hasn’t even attempted to discuss this from the perspective of attempting to understand reality. He’s not interested in truth, or he would be working to understand this. He’s only interested in trying to contrue reality to match what he already believes. That’s a very harmful mindset and it doesn’t lead to understanding the world.
Aww,c’mon. You really think that’s some kind of point? No shit?
So you overlook my flat statement of intent and read into it the precise, exact opposite of what I say, and then tell me how my mind is fucked? You kidding?
Now we’re getting somewhere!
How come its ok when you say it, but not me?
Dunno, open to question your opinion is as good as mine.
True, except for the part about it being me.
Not so much anymore. That’s why we call ourselves “progressives”.
Demand? Is it treason even to suggest? Were I gay, would you listen differently?
Which will happen slowly. Sorry, but them’s the facts. Happening a lot faster than I had hoped, frankly. Dancing shoes!
Truer words were never spoken.
And then you end a long and reasonable discourse with…this. Sigh.
But let me ask: if you became convinced, for whatever reason, that the achievement of equal rights for all the abovementioned would be more quickly achieved by such suggestions as mine…would it matter? To what, exactly, is your committment?
Why don’t you try explaining why it’s not a valid comparison, for a change. Yes, I really think it’s some kind of point, otherwise I wouldn’t have posted it. When you just say, “That’s not a valid point,” without explaining why, it looks startlingly similar to, “I can’t refute this argument.”
Your flat statement of intent is directly contradicted by the arguments you use to support your statement of intent. If a person says, “I’m not a homophobe, but gays don’t deserve any legal protection or consideration,” which part of that sentence do you give the most credence? The part where he says he’s not a homophobe, or the part where he says something homophobic?
This is the case with your posts in this thread, although obviously not to such a stark degree. You keep declaring that you have no ill will towards transexuals, but then you say things that demonstrate a measurable disregard for transexual’s rights and well being. Which part of your posts should I disregard? Your statements of intent, or the arguments you make which flatly contradict your stated intent?
Because of the conclusions you arrive at from our shared premises. Yes, transexual rights are a difficult goal to achieve. That does not give us an excuse to not fight for them at all.
Did you not, earlier in this thread, suggest that Will and Grace’s Jack (an effiminete gay man, but most definetly a man) was a transexual? Did we not spend several pages trying to make clear for you the distinction between a transvestite and a transexual?
No. A stupid idea is a stupid idea. Where you put your dick does not make your opinions any better informed.
Thank you for pointing out the blindingly obvious.
My commitment is equal rights for everyone. If you could explain how abandoning the fight for trans rights would make it easier to secure trans rights, I am certainly curious to see how that would work. On its face, it seems like a bit of a contradiction.
Two reasons. Number one, this is not your movement (despite your calling it that earlier in this thread. 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.
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?
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. “We’re here, we’re queer, we’re nice and nonthreatening and we promise to act exactly like everyone else even if it means continuing to hide who we are, get used to it!”
That chant is not catchy, elucidator.
Our commitment is for equal rights. “Be a nice, polite queer and we’ll give you some civil rights” is unacceptable. You’re not a friend to gay rights at all. You’re willing to go along with it as long as no one ever makes you uncomfortable. You’re progressive enough, and we queers should fly our freak flag high, but only to the point that it bothers suburban Republican soccer moms, not until it bothers you. That’s what this boils down to; you don’t want the gay rights movement associated with anything that makes you uncomfortable and you actually seem to think that because you’ve had a couple gay friends, you’re somehow an honorary part of our struggle and you have the right to help steer the ship as well. Too bad. You don’t.
Jesus fucking Christ. Diogenes called you an “old hippie”, but I know plenty of old hippies. None of them would ever tell me that my place in the equal rights movement was predicated on my being nonthreatening. You may vote Democrat, and that’s nice, 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.
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?
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.
(Emphasis added.)
Thank you for expressing that so well.
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?
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?
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.
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”? Again, you speak for all? Have you some sort of Certificate?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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?
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?
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.
[groan]
Lucy said to Charlie Brown: “Well, you win some and you lose some”
And Charlie said: “That would be nice.”