I can only assume that elucidator felt really bad about Scylla messing up in that Tom Foley Pit thread, and decided to make him feel better by screwing up even worse - i.e. conflating cross-dressers and transsexuals and dissing both parties in an inane manner. So maybe it’s profound empathy on elucidator’s part and not sheer pin-the-target-on-my-back stoopidity.
A quick apology and a vow to do a little study on the subject would be a good exercise in damage control.
In other words, try to learn from what the Republican leadership is not doing.
It wasn’t clear that he was using it as an isult in the original thread, so he openned this one specifically to explain that he did. How could you not get that from the OP…?
’luci’, you’re one of the few here who could induce me to break my posting dry spell to help you out…
When you said in the OP “…progressives make dumb mistakes” that was the true part of your post. That you had to elucidate that so clearly in the succeeding text was unfortunate, but not irredeemable, if you engage the rough criticism to come honestly.
Two avenues of inquiry you should attempt to answer here are offered below. Far be it from me to insist on your response, but please consider them.
What scholarship is available for persusal by the lay person regarding gender identity and the transgendered? (You know how to use Google, even if you’re constitutionally reluctant to exhaustively research the subjects on which you opine. You also started this thread in response to Una Persson, so you probably understand you’re obligated to do due diligence in evaluating your own position. Get to it.) What does that literature tell you about the validity of transgenderism as a human condition?
How does denial of a particular social identity claimed by a [tiny but definite] portion of society fit in with “progressivism”? Does said identity have to be strictly defined to be valid? If so, how then does that fit in with the very idea of “progressivism” (a notoriously flexible term in itself)?
Right. But since when have people generally put reality ahead of their own opinions? 'luci could decide to learn something about the issue, learn about theories as to its biological basis, learn about the (often cloudy) difference between the two sexes, and stop to think about whether transgenderism makes sense. Or he can live in ignorance and place his own kneejerk prejudices ahead of reality when evaluating the world. Thus far, he has apparently followed the latter course.
This clears something up, though - 'luci was indeed using the term as a deliberate insult to transgendered people.
We have learned something valuable about what kind of person he is.
No, of course not. Seriously - I’m not used to you being a moron, 'luci, but this question represents actual, straight-up stupidity. Are you saying you don’t even know the difference between the words “transvestite” and “transgender”?
In sum: you don’t know what the word means - but you’re confident whatever it describes doesn’t exist! Man, that’s . . . that’s thinking fascinating only for its confusion.
You’re a pretty smart guy, elucidator, but you’re almost never literally sincere; almost all your posts are written in irony and jokes. So I’m inclined to think that you’re kidding around or running some kind of prank. I mean, on THIS board of all places, with a number of rather well known posters who fall into these categories, you’ve never taken note of these words before?
I don’t even understand what the hell the point of your OP is. You seem to be claiming it is an attempt to clarify your position, in which case it’s the worst job of clarifying since the " lissener habla espanol?" incident. You say “this `transgendered’ theory is dumb” yet later claim you don’t know what the word means, and then talk about tranvestites, which you of course know is a materially different concept.
Exactly WHY did you start this thread? Just to say you don’t believe people can be legitimately transgendered, e.g. that it is not possible for someone to be one sex physically but psychologically another? If that was your point, why did it take so many words, phrased and structured as badly as it was, to say it? It should have taken you one or two sentences and 10, 15 words at most.
Yeah, what RickJay said. What was the point of your OP here? To explain that you meant the term “transgendered” with contempt and derision when applied to Ann Coulter, but when you are referring to the larger concept of transgenderism, you simply don’t believe it exists, and the use of the term “transgendered” hurts homosexuals?
Close but not quite. I don’t think the term “transgendered” actually “hurts homosexuals” but that elevating it to the same level demeans the fact of homosexuality. I think “transgendered” is a PC neologism, crafted for a worthy purpose, but thoughtlessly so that it actually hinders the cause it is intended to further.
One distinction must be made, and that is in the instance of actual physical hermaphroditism, where actual physical facts substantiate. You needlessly conflate the physical with the psychological. I may believe I am a woman trapped in the body of a man, or I may believe I am posessed of Pazuzu, or that Thetans are buggering my ingrams. Are you suggesting that the first instance must be taken as fact, while the rest can be safely regarded as delusional?
What transgendered people? Do you include heterosexual transvestites and/or homosexual transvestites, or only those unfortunate souls who believe that there souls were misassigned?
Ahh. That old problem. I always sort of figured this was a mental difficulty limited to four-year-olds, but I’ve run into it a lot on this message board.
'luci, let me explain something to you: the fact that you don’t know something doesn’t mean that no one knows it. The fact that the term “transgendered” doesn’t mean anything to you doesn’t mean it’s meaningless; it just means that you don’t know what it means. There are more things in heaven and earth, 'luci, and if you’re not even willing to investigate what you don’t know, you’re going to continue to be ignorant. Perhaps that’s satisfying to you, but it’s not something I can understand.
So, once again, if you don’t know the difference between cross-dressers and transgendered people, that’s your difficulty; the fact that you don’t know something doesn’t mean the rest of us don’t. The fact that you are conflating those two categories is only an expression of your own ignorance, it’s not some inherent problem with the words or categories themselves.
And some people actually think they’re attracted to members of their own sex. Imagine that!!
Do you seriously think that medical doctors would perform sex-change operations on people who are simply mentally disturbed? Hey, doc, I think I’m possed by Pozuz. Can you alter my feet to make them look like hooves? Sure thing, just sign this consent form…
You are having way too much fun with this, John. (Bit of a surprise, too, since I was not previously aware that these issues were so close to your heart.)
You never heard of trans-orbital lobotomy? And there is nothing “simple” about “mentally disturbed”.
Look, you’ve basically said that you’re an ignorant bigot, and proud of it. If you want to keep defending that position, go right ahead, but don’t blame me for having painted yourself into a corner.
