More to the point, it was intended to clarify, which I was quite sure would assuage any doubts you may have had as to my intentions and beliefs. Wish you were here. God, how I wish you were here!
PS: Was it you with the sig about a lesbian queen of the night army, or somesuch? That cracked me up.
Wait…its ok that it cracked me up, right?
You really, really ought to be ashamed of that one.
Elucidator, there’s only one way you’re going to talk your way out of the hole you’ve dug for yourself:
1 - Put down the shovel and stop posting
2 - Claim somebody else hacked their way into your account and was pretending to be you
3 - Profess shock and anger at the terrible things this person posted
4 - Never raise this subject again
These things you speak? These are not the way of my people.
I’m not even sure what you’re trying to say here.
You started this discussion with the preconception that homosexuality is valid and real and transsexuality is not valid or real. And I’m trying to explain to you that the reasoning you’re using to decide that transsexualism isn’t valid or real is the same reasoning that people use when they claim homosexuality isn’t. Setting aside your preconceptions for five seconds, if you possibly can (and yes, this obviously will be a stretch for you), why is that solid reasoning when applied to transsexuality but not to homosexuality? Both phenomena boil down to things that can only be determined based upon a person’s own statements; both phenomena, however, remain fixed over time and neither one seems to be “fixable” by psychological methods. Why is it that “homosexuality” counts as a real phenomenon but transsexuality doesn’t?
Ahh! So we come down to it. You believe homosexuality is real. You believe transsexuality is not. Whatever logic is used is irrelevant - because, in your mind, that logic is valid when it confirms your preconceptions, and invalid when it doesn’t. You are unwilling to reconsider any of your preconceptions, because you have already defined what is “fact” and what is not. So, even if you’re using the same reasoning applied by rampant homophobes to condemn homosexuality, it’s valid, because you’re using it on transsexuals. That’s what you’re saying here.
Sorry, sugarpants. Like I said, I’m pissed on behalf of my trannie friends, and I’m pissed off as usual when I see people bleating about things they don’t understand and using invalid reasoning to do so. You’ve decided what is “fact” and what is not, and the evidence for those things or the evidence offered to help you reconsider your positions is irrelevant - because some things are “fact” and some are not, and you already know what those things are. Bully for you; going through life without thinking must be nice.
This is just trolling, right? You’re screwing with us. You don’t honestly think that the above babbling is meaningful, do you? Or is this just a sad attempt to make two completely incompatible statements mesh? Because it’s not working. All you’ve managed to do is share some bullshit with the rest of us.
Wow, that’s some stubbornness. “Frequently, but not always”? Brave attempt to weasel around what has actually been said by people (named kimera) who know a lot about the subject.
(Thanks again for posting here, kimera.)
Again, you floor me with your utter lack of any sort of insight into your own reasoning. See, here’s an excellent parallel to the gay rights movement. You see, many people have advanced the argument that gay people have just the same marriage rights as heterosexuals - us gays have every legal right to marry folks of the opposite sex! And, in your opinion, transsexual people have every legal right available to them - they just have to act like everyone else! Excellent! What a victory for LGBT rights.
Incidentally, your continued use of “TV” (as in “transvestite”) in reference to transsexualism, when it’s already been explained that transvestitism and transsexualism constitute completely separate phenomena, really is proof positive that you’re not engaged in any kind of open-minded discussion here.
This is rather humorous in context of the next section of your post.
See, it was funny, because you accuse me of misreading your posts, and then come up with, “You think I’m a homophobe.” Except that in this thread, all I’ve taken issue with is your opinion on transexuals, not homosexuals. They are, please remember, two very different things. As I’ve said, your position on gay rights is rock solid. I do, however, think that you’re a bit transphobic. You seem irrationally bothered by the idea of transexuality, and you are trying very hard to rationalize it. To do this, you have fallen back on the same arguments routinely used by homophobes to argue against homosexuality. When this is pointed out to you, it causes severe cognitive dissonance (the number one threat to our nation) and so you lash out. I am, however, confident that you are smart enough to overcome this, even if you’re too prideful to admit to it in this thread.
At least, that’s my take on why you’re acting the way you are in this thread.
No, I’m going to stand by that one. Certainly, it’s easier for a transvestite to stay in the closet than a homosexual, but the expectation is still stupid and unfair, and reflects poorly on the person who expects others to alter their behavior simply because it’s outside their comfort zone.
A transvestite who wanted to be female wouldn’t be a transvestite. He’d be transgendered. She may also be gay, depending on what gender he is attracted to after she transitioned. A hetero transvestite wouldn’t be transgendered simply because some of his behavior crossed gender lines. By that standard, almost everyone on Earth would be transgendered, because nobody perfectly matches the stereotype for their gender. We all have some traits that run counter to our biological and psychological gender. Some people have more than others. The number of such traits is not a reliable indicator of transgenderism.
No, I don’t see how I could possibly have known that. Not sure what difference it makes, either.
I think you’re responding with insults because the logic of what he’s saying is clear. Once again, you are making an argument about transsexuals that is frequently applied to gay people, and yet you pretend there is no parallel. When I’ve pointed it out, the only response you could muster was that homosexuality is real and transsexualism isn’t; that is, the only way your logic works is if you presume the outcome in advance. Gay people can live as heterosexuals and have the same rights as they do, and transsexual people can hide their transsexuality and have the same rights as cisgendered people. The latter is a pretty literal paraphrase of what you said, minus the insensitive references to “changing clothes”. Why shouldn’t gay people be expected to live as heterosexuals in order to have the same rights? Because homosexuality is real? Great. QED - you declare an argument valid when it supports your preconceptions, and you declare it invalid when it doesn’t.
If you really can’t see the problem with your reasoning here, I don’t know what to say.
I have this crazy idea that people will respond to logic and reason. They don’t, usually. I get the occasional lucky hit, but for the most part, people don’t hold attitudes they do because of reason, and they’re not willing to change them when solid reasoning is advanced to the contrary. Why else would white supremacists exist? Or homeopathy adherents? Or Bush supporters? The sad part is seeing someone I really did think to be reasonable displaying blatantly poor reasoning and refusing to reconsider it even when others have offered them good reason to do so.
I’m almost pathologically optimistic about people, really. I honestly thought, earlier in this thread, that you were beginning to listen to what other people were saying. My problem is not really with your beliefs per se - in fact, I think there are a number of people on this board who will attest to my willingness to acknowledge that other people can come to opposite conclusions from mine and come to them reasonably and honestly. I really think people can have opposing views on many issues without either side being wrong.
But I can also detect incredibly poor reasoning. I can see when you make an argument that presumes as fact what you’ve decided is the case. That sort of thing bugs me. I think the world is a better place when people hold viewpoints that they come to through honest, logical consideration rather than kneejerk reactions. I certainly have reconsidered a lot of my viewpoints because of those things. I think most highly of other people who do the same. I really wish you hadn’t decided to make it clear that you aren’t one of those people, because it’s disappointing.
See, Miller’s on the same wavelength as me on this, except he’s even more pathologically optimistic about people than I am.
Maybe they’ll come up with a prescription drug to lower my expectations of the people around me.
Technically, wouldn’t any type of transgender be gay?
Hetero, we’ll say male:
a) attracted to women, becomes woman and therefore is lesbian-ish
b) attracted to men, making him a gay transgender, becomes woman and hetero-ish
I don’t think its about gay rights, transgenders are a small group who needed to latch on to another movement and both (trans and gay) are dealing with refuting traditional ideas about sexuality and seeking acceptance. Most people consider both groups to be valid and there is some overlap, so how does one hurt another?
This is excellent advice. If I was one of those sorts of dudes that took quotes and turned them into sigs, I was sooooo “sig” this. 
elucidator- if you can’t buy into #'s 3-4, try “I am sorry, I was wrong due to my ignorance on this subject. My Apologies.”
But if you can’t do that then, - Dude put the fucking shovel down and STFU!
Dude put the fucking shovel down and STFU!
(That second quote is the echo caused by the immenses depth of the hole elucidator has dug himself into.) 
And I don’t see it that way. Are the words “honest disgreement” not in your vocabulary? Because you see a similarity doesn’t make it so, unless Someone did, in fact, die and make you God. That homosexuality is real is a demonstrable fact, by the millions. Clearly, there is somewhat less overwhelming data regarding what you define as “transexualism”. And “valid” is a judgement call that I have made for myself. “Valid” isn’t subject to evidence.
Huh? What about all those people who claim not to be gay, but are?
Because I know for sure that millions of homosexual people exist! Are you suggesting that there are as many “transexuals” (note: quote marks are intended to underline using a common word without necessarily agreeing with your definition. No slur or disrespect to any person, living or dead, real or imagined, is implied.)
Besides which, I was never here about “transexuals” to begin with, I was here out of respect for friend Una’s opinion. Of the two of us, I expect my opinion on the subject is more open to reason than yours, 'cause your the one screaming your head off.
I mean, come on, my gay friend was a moronic bigot? Because he varied from your sacred text? You have any idea how dumb that is? Come to think of it, neither do I, 'cause that’s way, way out there. Galactic.
No.
We can easily imagine, let’s say, four people who are all physically unremarkable – no ambiguity with respect to any physical aspect of gender; all have male genitals.
A can self-identify as male, and be primarily sexually attracted to women.
B can self-identify as female, and be primarily sexually attracted to men.
C can self-identify as male, and be primarily sexually attracted to men.
D can self-identify as female, and be primarily sexually attracted to women.
It’s fair to call B and D trans. A and C are obviously not. It’s fair to call A straight, and C gay.
B and D may choose to undergo sex reassignment surgery. If they do, it would be fair to subsequently call D gay. B is simply now a woman, whose body now matches her self-identification as to gender. And since she’s a woman that is sexually attracted to men, it’s fair to call her straight.
In neither B or D’s case would I say that “mutilation” is a fair characterization.
That’s pretty clear, thanks. I was trying to look from 'luci’s side as well as my own, which confounded things.
If transgenderism is not “real” it would appear that A and D are straight, B and C are gay. Depending on how you view the whole thing, anyone but A can be construed as gay in one way or another. I think that’s what I was trying to say. I better stop before I veer farther off topic.
Some people are attracted to the same gender before and after surgery, others switch. So you could start out as a bio-male attracted to females, have a sex reassignment, and be more interested in males. I’ve talked with people who have had this experience, and are self-reflective and candid, and say that they were not attracted to males before their reassignment.
There are also people who are attracted to trans people, and not all trans people do a full reassignment (for economic reasons or because the full transition does not seem necessary to them or they dislike the results of the surgery at this stage of the medical technology). Some trans people are attracted to trans people and not very concerned with who started out with, or ended up with, what.
every time I tried to answer, another page turned up. as the founder of the 'liberal but not a fucking lunatic" society, let me add my name to those recomendiing some self education,
Just as I said. To clarify a point that seemed to cause some distress on the part of Una Persson, distress I was sure was misplaced and/or misunderstood.
Why, looky there! Very first thing I said. Son of a gun! “In a word, no”
Too complicated for you?
My beloved Boris, whatever are you on about? Dear me…
I only read the first page and skimmed a bit beyond.
Boris, my sweet. Really. You are skidding into a ditch on this one. And I dont’ say that from a position of passion about the political correctness of it all. I think taking a swipe at Coulter in a manner that highlights her lack of femininity is fine. I think taking any swipe you fancy at her is fine. It’s just not great to imply that there is anything fundamentally wrong with innocent others when you do so.
'Tis a sad reality that some of our less fortunate MTF friends never quite manage to unmake the the marks that testosterone leaves on them, and they have my sympathy because it must really suck to be a transgendered person whose former sex is unmistakably stamped on their bodies and faces forever.
As it happens The Bitch does resemble a person who is in that unfortunate situation. Is it inherently unkind to the people who are genuinely in that situation to say it about someone else, of whom it is NOT true [so far as we know], as a means of being unkind to her?
I think that is the original question distilled.
But then you had to go an open up this thread and start blathering on about how transgendered people are no more worthy of our respect and compassion than Tom Cruise, and that’s just…well, darlin’, it’s just ignerint. Hate to say it, but it’s just so.
Get yerself some skoolin’ on this one, 'luci, you need it.
So, if there aren’t as many transexuals as homosexuals, then those who claim to be transexuals can’t really be believed? Is there a numerical threshold where something moves from being a valid understanding of ones’ self to being a delusion?
No, he was just ignorant. Like you are. I don’t know whether, when people tried to explain to him how TV and TG were different from what he thought they were, he desperately tried to cling to the way things had been forty years ago and insulted everyone who tried to correct him. Like you do.
It’s a psychological and medical condition recognized by the American Psychological Association, and the treatment - gender reassignment surgery - is practiced in the United States only after the diagnosed has gone through years of therapy and gender reassignment therapy - horomones, living as a member of the opposite gender for an extended period of time - in order to ensure that they suffer from this condition and would benefit from surgery. I know people who went through this procedure and became immensely happier with themselves and their lives afterwards. I know someone who is seriously emotionally fucked up and wants this procedure but can’t get it because no doctor believes that gender dysmorphism is his actual problem.
Again - what people are trying to tell you is that your statement of ‘I don’t believe you have a real condition; what you have is a mental disturbance’ (single quotes to indicate paraphrasing) is both A) what some people use as a reason for not feeling comfortable accepting homosexuality and B) proven to be incorrect based upon recent studies regarding the human brain.
Feel free to cling to your beliefs. It’s a free country. But maybe, rather than placing the back of your hand to your forehead and sighing “Ah, tempora! Ah mores!”, you should actually read some of the provided cites, read a book on the subject, and think about why maybe things are different now.
Indeed they are; in fact, I’ve engaged in quite a number of honest disagreements around here. When you’re ready to start considering the issue honestly, we can talk about whether we still disagree.
See? This is where you lose all credibility. The two situations are precisely analogous; you haven’t come up with a single reason to share with Miller or me why the analogy doesn’t work. So, instead, you just repeat that you disagree, as though logic depended on your consent.
Once again, the only possibility you possess is making an assertion over and over. So do it. Demonstrate the existence of homosexuality. Demonstrate it to my satisfaction. Or else stop presenting it as “fact” - because it’s a fact you can’t prove.
My trouble, for about the fourth time, is that you’re presenting your preconceptions as though they were facts. Homosexuality exists; it’s a “demonstrable fact” - because you believe in it, and nothing else. Transsexuality, though, is controversial and open to debate - because you don’t believe in it! My, how your facts bend in the wind, 'luci.
How would you know? You haven’t even demonstrated that you know what the term means - for the first half of this thread, you kept arguing that, because you don’t know what a term means, it must therefore not have a meaning. You didn’t do my opinion of you any favors there; your entire argument, in all its permutations, has been that what you believe is Fact and what everyone else believes is Debateable. You believe in homosexuality - but you lack the insight to consider why you believe in it. It just is. It is Fact. And you lack the insight to consider why you don’t believe in transsexualism - it just isn’t. It is Not Fact. And in the end, despite a good deal of evidence and explanation directed your way, you haven’t budged at all. That’s a sign only of your intransigence; you’ve developed an opinion, and the facts will fit it. Logic, evidence - none of it matters, if it contradicts 'luci.
No, I don’t consider this to be “honest disagreement”. You haven’t shown the slightest intellectual honesty, 'luci. Other people, who are for whatever reason more impressed by your past contributions, are putting this more nicely than I am. Me, I’ve never been as easily impressed, though I still have to say it’s a disappointment to realize that you don’t live within the Reality-Based Community.
Ahh. But then again, as we’ve clearly seen, nothing is really subject to evidence for you.
So you’re now capable of determining others’ sexual orientations based on - what - telepathy?
Based on what? You keep saying that it’s “fact” that homosexuality exists, but you haven’t come up with any actual reasons to believe it. The point is that what you determine to be fact and what you determine to be non-fact isn’t based on evidence or reason - it’s based on gut reactions. That’s why the only thing you can come up with is repeating, over and over, that it’s a fact that gay people exist and transsexual people don’t.
No, most likely there are fewer transsexuals than gays. By a conservative estimate of 2% of the population, 120,000,000 people on Earth are gay. There are fewer transsexuals, and so we can’t be sure they exist at all? By your reasoning, there are also no Australians.
You might have decided not to flap your jaw in ignorance, then. I always consider that the best course of action. And I try to apologize when I discover I’ve done so.
On the contrary. I’m not screaming at all. I’m rather sad to discover that you’re so unreasonable, but it’s not a particularly important matter to me. You’ll discover that your opinions are considerably less important to me than they are to you.
At any rate, you’ve shown yourself impervious to reason - you insist over and over that certain things are “fact” and others aren’t on the basis of no evidence whatsoever. I have tried to demonstrate a few things to you - for one, neither fact can truly be demonstrated empirically. I have tried to demonstrate that many people disbelieve in homosexuality using precisely the same grounds you give to say that transsexuality doesn’t exist. In my opinion, it’s poor reasoning in both cases - but you maintain that it’s valid reasoning when it confirms your beliefs, but invalid when it contradicts them. This is a very simple matter, 'luci, and you still have not responded to it honestly. You have responded only by stating, again and again, that homosexuality is a “fact” and that transsexuality is not. This is simply restating your initial opinions and it’s a demonstration that, to you, “facts” represent merely what you have already decided to be true. You are comfortable using the word as it suits you - fact, in short, is the same as opinion to you.
Much like a certain president of a country whose name rhymes with Blunited Blates that I could name but won’t.
Possibly. Possibly he hadn’t had the benefits of hearing from a crowd of logical, informed people who knew vastly more about the subject on an internet message board. Not having had the same advantages as you, I don’t think he can be held to account in quite the same way that you can.
This is both inaccurate and grossly offensive; your only argument, so far, has been in stating that homosexuality is a “fact” and transsexuality isn’t. You are the one arguing from certain sacred precepts; I - along with many other people, including kimera who I want to name-drop again because I’m so glad to have her around when this issue comes up - have been making logical arguments based on evidence. And you have not. I don’t consider my opinions automatically right and wrong as you do, 'luci. You are the one operating as if from a sacred text; I only consider my opinions relevant to the point that I can prove them through evidence and reason. Which, actually, has changed my opinion on a number of things over the years. I hope, one day, you gain a little bit of insight and are able to reconsider the sacred text you’re currently operating from.
I can’t imagine what you’re thinking. Over and over, you just call your opponents arguments “dumb”.
'luci, do you think we’re stupid? Do you think we can’t tell when you call an argument “dumb” and can’t come up with a response to it? I know what that means. I’m not that easily fooled.
I have no clue, no idea, whatever in the blazing fuck you could possibly mean by this.
Is this it? Are you trying to say that because I believe that homosexuality exists I must necessarily accept your definitions and opinions about “transexuality”? I mean, I don’t want to respond to a point if that isnt what it is, because you’ve totally thrown me a curve with this whole thing about proving that homosexuality exists. I can’t even figure out if you believe it or not!
Are you about to ask me to prove heterosexuals exist? I’m pretty sure about that one.
Does this seem like a normal argument to anyone else, that for some reason I’m expected to prove that homosexuality exists?
I don’t get it. I’ll move on to the rest of your, ah, arguments when you fill me in on what code you are speaking here. As God is my witness, I have no idea what you’re on about here.