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.
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.
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?
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.
No prob. Warnings are just meant to nudge posters away from no-nos. All’s fair and square.
I might have a bit more sympathy for this argument, if we weren’t talking about the guy who earlier proclaimed:
I guess that’s only okay when he’s the one dishing it out, not when he’s taking it.
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.
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.
That is just wrong on so many levels, I wouldn’t even know where to begin. Get thee to an evolutionary biology class.
Because orientation and gender are two different things.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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?
Oh yeah, and Miller? Why do the manties look like granny panties, or perhaps diaper slips?
I shudder.
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.
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.
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.
That argument is totally gay.
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.
Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
May I nominate that one short sentence as the best way to sum up this whole thread? 