If you are going to reduce your argument to sheer insult, rest assured I wont waste any time on it. You accuse me of ignorance while congratulating yourself, based on nothing more substantial than your insistence that it is so.
Feh! as they say in Lubbock.
Freak freely!
Not in this life! I give as good as I get and go down fighting. Treat me fair, you’ll get fair, fuck with me and its the horns.
Want to stuff words, stuff them into your own mouth, since its your ass you’re pulling them out of.
Who among us has the hubris to fling terms about willy-nilly and then demand that others provide a satisfactory definition? Hey man, you fucked up. "There are more things in heaven and earth … " Be a peach and apologize.
I was being extremely civil, especially since this is the Pit, up until you tried to make this about me instead of about you.
That was a an accurate representation of the OP. I only said in clear, precise words what others in this thread have been dancing around. The thing is, I don’t think you’re a bigot, so I don’t understand why you insist on making yourself look like one.
Well, you are ignorant, elucidator. Polycarp has provided a very clear summation of the difference between the terms you’ve been misusing. The way you’ve continued to misuse them without even acknowledging his post strikes me as postively Bushian.
I’d also like to redirect your attention to the extremely apt comparison John Mace made between your attitude towards transexuals, and common homophobia. Because damned if I can spot the difference. You insist that your own preconceptions be given precedence over current medical/psychological opinion, despite the fact that you have no standing at all in the fields necessary to make such a determination. How is this different from homophobes who insist that homosexuality is a “choice” that can be “cured?”
“I’m not a homophobe! I never said I was scared of them!”
Your OP was nothing more than an open declaration that you do not understand transexuality (ignorance) but you are more than happy to negatively judge people who identify as transexual (bigotry). John Mace has got your number on this one, 'luci. You’ve managed to shred your reputation as one of the most progressive members on the board by this spectacularly ill-conceived and misguided thread. But, on the bright side, that means I’ve moved up in the standings, so I guess it’s not all bad.
Holy shit. elucidator’s posts tend to vacillate between very clever and very incomprehensible, but I never thought I’d see one that ends up in Martin Hyde territory.
Ave atque vale, 'luci. You might understand the transgender movement sooner than you think, 'cause you’re gonna get your balls handed to you in a sack.
Not quite sure what you’re getting at with the lobotomy issue. But if you describe a successful outcome of treatment as the situation in which the subject’s quality of life, physically, physiologically, and emotionally, is enhanced to the highest degree, then you can have a jumping-off point from which to evaluate the success of the outcomes of the treatments mentioned.
Which transsexual can be considered to have experienced the superior outcome, the one who underwent the lobotomy, or the one who underwent gender reassignment?
I’m not going to pretend that I, personally, have studied the issue sufficiently to proclaim that the definitive answer is one or the other, but I do know which one I’m inclined to expect it to be.
Similarly, which treatment is more likely to be successful for the self-proclaimed Pazuzu-host, the lobotomy, or the hoof-implants?
xenophon41 offered a particularly apt suggestion above, wrt you performing some “due diligence” to ensure that your opinions are informed. I’d like to endorse it, myself. If the subject, for you, does not justify prioritizing such a course of action, I submit that the most elucidator-like thing for you to do would be to withdraw the assertions you have made, pending further study, and apologize to those whom you offended with your ill-advised comments, which, though intended as barbs, effectively functioned as scatter-gun blasts.
Just sayin’.
And now on to some legitimate, fairly expressed disagreement…
In a way, I was “there”. Spent years working in the co-op movement, as relentlessly, mercilessly PC a bunch as ever tried to save a planet. God bless 'em, they near drove me to drink. We had mandatory weekly meetings for pitilessly earnest discussions of sexism. I have heard otherwise sane women argue for an hour whether or not the term “lesbian” ought to be capitalized in order to express the maximum degree of respect!
Thats where I first heard the term, and first heard it discussed. There was (believe it or not!) some argument as to whether lesbians should admit common cause with gay men, because men teh suxxor and being gay was no excuse.
The term I more or less favored (not having a dog in the fight, being devoutly hetero) was “transgressive”, meaning any behavior disparaged for lack of being “normal”, which included homosexual, bi-sexual, TV, so on and so forth. Trouble is, there is a lot of “transgressive” sexual behavior that is transgressive for very good reasons, and *none * of us were about to assert any right to such. (I had to abandon “transgressive” when it was pointed out to me that pedophiles have some reasonable claim to being “born that way” and I was not about to struggle for thier freedom in that regard.)
To my mind, it made very good sense for gay men and lesbians to make common cause. And I was by no means alone in being suspicious of any attempt to lump TV into the mix. My understanding is such that this debate was carried on in a much wider venue, and that the concensus reached was “transgendered”, which I thought then, and think now, is too nebulous to be useful. Makes us look silly, which makes what we fight for look silly. Lord knows, we have enough enemies as it is.
Hope that answers, Miller. If not, feel free.
Boot Hill is full of 'em.
I think your understanding is incorrect. Please refer to post #19 from Polycarp, which more closely resembles “consensus” in the wider venue. (Note that the definition offered would not include the majority of transvestites.)
The way you’re going on, one gets the impression that you are Jack Chick trapped in the body of Paul Krugman.
Would you care to start the recovery process by acknowledging the major differences between a transvestite and a transsexual?
Holy Zog, even regular Dear Abby readers have a much better understanding of this subject than you.
Calming down, counting to ten…“John is a good guy, b]John** is a good guy…”
If you know better, and you do, why do you insist on misreading what I say?
That was civil? Maybe where you’re from, but where I’m from that’s time for someone to pick bloody chicklets off the sidewalk. Rhetoricly speaking, of course.
I don’t see where I haven’t made your ignorance quite clear. You admit over and over that you don’t know what the word “transgendered” means but you obviously haven’t taken the simplest steps to rid yourself of that ignorance. It’s not tough to find a definition of the word - so why haven’t you done so?
Apparently it’s because you’re more comfortable being ignorant on the subject. You can hold an opinion based on your manifest confusion, or you can attempt to find out some of the details of what you’re talking about. Your choice, dude.
You consider an accurate summation of your conduct to be offensive. Interesting.
Did you read what I said? I said I don’t think you’re a bigot, but I don’t understand why you’re acting like one. Let me repeat: I DO NOT THINK YOU ARE A BIGOT.
You didn’t read what I wrote. I said I was civil, up to the point where you tried to make this about me. Afterwards, I felt free to let lose. But keep in mind, that I am not calling you a bigot. I’m saying that you are calling yourself that, even if you don’t seem to realize it. Almost everyone posting here is trying to tell you the same thing. Maybe you should stop and listen.
For what? Does anyone here think, even for a moment, that I set out thinking “You know, it would be good to insult Una Persson, who has offered me no offense but what the heck, its a good day to be a shitass!”?
And I don’t demand a definition, since I don’t really need one. My only point is that the term is not well defined. If you think the term is fully and correctly defined, good on ya. I don’t. I use the term as I understand it, and if you think that makes me a bigot, you can go pound burdocks. Got my faults, Goddess knows, and the list is long, but “bigot” ain’t on it.
I am stopping, and reading, and responding in good faith. An unpopular opinion is nothing new to me. Most people who respond to you are not libertarians, I don’t see you chucking it aside lightly.
That said, neither of us are innocent lambs when it comes to over-reacting. I’ll make nice if you will. More tea?
“I don’t understand this, therefore no one does.”
I know a lot of people have this kind of defective thinking. And experience has shown that when it’s pointed out, people don’t feel the need to correct that defective thinking. But I don’t think I’ll ever understand why. You keep saying that you don’t know what the term means, and then you say that you don’t care what it means. And yet you’re still confident making statements about it.
Amazing.
The evidence is beginning to strongly suggest that this is not the case.
You know, people who rant that homosexuality is a perversion also claim not to be bigots. Their claim doesn’t hold any water. Why do you think yours does?
Oooooh, burn! Oh, for a searing Wildean response! Alas!
Bite me.
Posted before last post.
Bite me, part deux.