[QUOTE=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?
[/QUOTE]
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.
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.
Maybe I’m naive and idealistic, but I do think he must have some reason (valid or, more likely, not) other than squick.
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. 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.
[QUOTE=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.
[/QUOTE]
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.
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?
[QUOTE=John Mace]
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.
[/QUOTE]
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.
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.
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.
Good source for legal facts and interpretations:
Transgender Law and Policy Institute
From the source cited above; bolding mine:
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:
It is not clear that the state can dissolve an existing, previously “heterosexual” marriage on the basis of SRS. From the source given above:
Hope this information, and cite, are useful for this thread.
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.
Wouldn’t you love to go door to door polling that question?
Wow, that really surprises me! Excellent news.
Erm, that was in reference to Shoshana’s post, not kimera’s post about botched Mexican SRS.
[QUOTE=kimera]
Just a note: SRS has been done for centuries. Instead of making vaginas, the early surgeons just removed the penis and testicles..
[/QUOTE]
You sure you’re not talking about the procedures for creating eunuchs?
[QUOTE=elucidator]
Wouldn’t you love to go door to door polling that question?
[/QUOTE]
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:
[QUOTE=elucidator]
I’ll check in if anyone has anything substantial to say, but this is a bit redundant. And besides, it harshes my buzz, dude.
[/QUOTE]
You appear to have accepted matt_mcl’s posts as substantial, yet you have not responded to them.
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.
[QUOTE=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.
[/QUOTE]
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?
I’m all done today talking to people who treat me like shit.