Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
User Journal

Journal BarbaraHudson's Journal: F*ck the toxic LGBT community 177

Political correctness has gotten to the point where anyone is transgender, even if it's only a guy saying "I prefer cats - that's my feminine side" or a gal saying "I love my shotgun - that's my masculine side," they too can claim the label. Meanings have become so blurred that it's considered bad manners to call bullshit because you might offend that one poster who claimed his girlfriend has a penis and she enjoys it. That's not a transsexual - that's a gay transvestite transgenderist and you're also gay - just admit it already.

The stupidity from the entire LGBT community, as expressed on Facebook over the last year, made me re-examine previous assumptions. Some examples:

What was wrong with civil unions?

I was in favor of same-sex marriage long before it became popular. I was saying "Why deprive gays of the joys of divorce?"

But upon re-examination, marriage is a civil union. Nothing more, nothing less. The state regulates it under state laws, not any other organization. The state licenses it, and the state approves individual licenses and regulates the dissolution of marriages. Not a church or other group.

So what is the difference between marriage and any other civil union? Just like civil unions, marriages preserve many individual rights while granting others and imposing some obligations and restrictions. Marriage and civil unions allow the other partner to make decisions in medical care, jointly adopt, and pool assets. The only difference is that civil unions can set additional conditions that marriage cannot, and civil unions also envisage relationships that have nothing to do with marriage.

I think it would have been better to just pass a declaration that recognizes that all marriages are civil unions, and to be known henceforth as such. End all the mysticism surrounding the term marriage by deprecating it.

Would I undo same-sex marriage laws? Of course not - but in retrospect, the whole mess could have been handled much better by sticking to the facts - that marriage is a civil union.

The meaninglessness of the word "transgender"

Historically, this whole mess can be laid at the foot of the cross-dressing community, starting with Virginia Prince (Arnold Lowman). Prince mis-appropriated the term transgender thus:

In other works, Prince also helped popularize the term 'transgender', and erroneously asserted that she coined transgenderist and transgenderism, words which she meant to be understood as describing people who live as full-time women, but have no intention of having genital surgery. Prince also consistently argued that transvestism is very firmly related to gender, as opposed to sex or sexuality.[8] Her use of the term "femmiphile" related to the belief that the term "transvestite" had been corrupted, intending to underline the distinction between heterosexual crossdressers, who act because of their love of the feminine, and the homosexuals or transsexuals who may cross-dress.[1][10][11] Princeâ(TM)s idea of a "true transvestite" was clearly distinguished from both the homosexual and the transsexual, claiming that true transvestites are "exclusively heterosexual... The transvestite values his male organs, enjoys using them and does not desire them removed."

That is a far cry from transsexuals, and the continued attempts by the LGBT community to blur the distinction so as to legitimize cross-dressing and other behaviours is both dishonest and seriously misguided, because now in the public mind transgender can mean anything, including transsexual.

It's gotten to the point that transgenderists insist that making the distinction between full-time cross-dressers and transsexuals is both wrong and "harmful to the community." Oddly enough, it's gay men, some of whom are cross-dressers, that are the most vocal in their attacks, which are only directed at male-to-female transsexuals. An example was a recent attack by a gay female-to-male transsexual saying that male-to-female transsexuals are cross-dressers, mimicking perfectly the accusations of transvestites. WTF? Another was by a gay cross-dresser who, after being invited to a discussion after misrepresenting himself as a male-to-female transsexual, started the whole "you're really just men in dresses" thing.

In the end, transgender means everything and nothing - it's a label that's as solid as Jello, and like Jello, impossible to nail down.

Organized LGBT discrimination against transsexuals

Why would LGBT groups and individuals want to beat up on transsexuals? One thing that becomes obvious over time is that they resent the fact that transsexualism by it's very nature tends to confirm the traditional heteronormative gender binary - especially male-to-female transsexuals. Female-to-male transsexuals get a pass on this accusation, same as they aren't accused of being cross-dressers by many in the LGBT community, not even by cross-dressers.

The Human Rights Coalition is a good example of the systemic nature of their toxic view of male-to-female transsexuals among their own workers.

"Leadership culture is experienced as homogenous â" gay, white, male"

One of the most frequent concerns that rose was the sense of an organizational culture rooted in a white, masculine orientation which is judgemental of all those who donâ(TM)t fit that mold,â the report states in summarizing its survey findings. âoeDisparate treatment toward women and those with 'soft skills' was frequently cited by staff â" both men and women â" and there is a sense that if you operate outside of that orientation, you will not be successful at HRC."

"Younger staff in particular are exploited and not rewarded financially." Another said, "Straight women and lesbians get sexist treatment from gay men at HRC."

No wonder people there wait years to transition publicly. With friends like these, I'd rather be dealing with fundamentalist Christians. Many of them change their attitudes once they get to know us personally.

People in "the community" say I should stop criticizing because it will hurt the community. My response nowadays is "Big f*cking deal. My community is family, friends, and neighbours. I am not part of your community, never have been, and never will be. There were no 'bathroom bills' until you guys got involved. People didn't make a habit of mis-identifying us as 'perverted cross-dressers'."

The "LGBT Community"

As I pointed out above, I don't buy into the whole concept, and from the responses I've seen I'm not the only one. People get beaten up in the local gay ghetto, but are afraid to leave it because they've bought into the lie that the rest of the world is even more hostile. This is not a supportive community - it's toxic as all hell. I don't know where the gay village is, but I do know I don't want to go there.

Transsexuals already had the backing of the medical community before the modern gay rights movement. Unlike the LGBTs, we didn't resort to violent public protests - we didn't need to. Nevertheless, the community continues to spread disinformation linking us to them, saying such things as "it was a transsexual who threw the first rock at Stonewall," when it was actually a transvestite.

It's so bad that if you're a transsexual, people automatically assume you're gay. While numbers vary depending on who you believe, about 30%-50% of heterosexual male-to-female transsexuals change their sexual orientation post-transition. Another large chunk are bi; only a minority are lesbians. Whodathunkit? And those who do switch are the gay community's worst fear - demonstrating that many transsexuals affirn the conventional heteronormative gender binary that they see as the oppressor.

The whole mental illness thing

This is a complicated question, and one that, on closer examination, I have to give a qualified "yes" to the mental illness argument. I know, what a shocker! The current argument, which I agree with, is that transsexuality itself is a physical condition, not a mental disorder, and that it's the mind (assuming male-to-female transsexuals) that is not completely masculinized before birth, giving rise to the condition.

So far, so good. The problem is, we have no studies of how many people who also had brains that did not completely masculinize do not suffer from gender dysphoria (the resultant distress of the brain saying "these are the wrong parts").

We know that schizophrenia is a mental illness with its' roots in the physical brain, but we don't hesitate to call the disease itself a mental disease. We don't hesitate to call PTSD a mental disorder, even though its' cause is experiencing an external physical event that is so horrific that it has a severe impact on the person. Ditto for major depressive disorder.

So why the change from Gender Identity Disorder to Gender Dysphoria? In practical terms of treating it, there is no difference for transsexuals. However, the looser criteria have allowed non-transsexual transgenders to claim that they too fall under the same global umbrella. The same change that allowed transsexuals to escape the label of mental illness is very appealing to transgenderists searching for legitimacy.

If we use the original definition of a mental disorder as a mental condition that interferes with the patients' ability to cope with the world around them (such as negatively affecting their mood, thinking, and behavior), we are left with the fact that both Gender Identity Disorder and Gender Dysphoria certainly seem to describe the impact on mental functioning to a physical problem - in other words, a mental disorder.

Given the huge comorbidity with other mental disorders such as suicidal ideation, it may be time to re-examine some assumptions, and by this, I don't just mean disorders.

Is there really a difference between sex and gender? Even in transsexuals, the two are extremely tightly bound - treatment to reduce the difference between physical sex and perceived gender works with a 95-98% rate. It would be just as valid to state that treatment to reduce the difference between physical sex and perceived sex works. In chasing the idea that sex and gender are two different things in an attempt to explain transsexuality, we may have missed the obvious - it's only because of the "gender identity" concept that we miss the obvious - that it's all about sex. It's also why a perceived difference between perceived and physical sex causes distress in the first place. If they were completely separate, one would not impinge on the other, the same way that eye colour doesn't affect height.

Calling it gender identity instead of perceived sex led to the disassociation of the two. The concept of "gender identity" being separate from physical sex is hard for people to wrap their minds around; a lot harder than the correlation between physical sex and perceived sex, and the obvious problems that can be expected to arise when the two don't match. It also leads directly to the current alphabet soup of "genders" that is the transgendered community, and the confusion with transsexuals.

Screw that, and screw the LGBT "community", that loves using us to raise their profile for fund raising purposes and then continues to throw us under the bus. And those bathroom bills the LGBT community is "helping us fight?" Don't need your help. Permanent change will come via the courts if anyone is foolish enough to press charges. And considering they've already mistakenly arrested at least on xx woman, I'm not worried.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

F*ck the toxic LGBT community

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward

    Perhaps it's time to put down the idea of 'gender', just be 'human', and get the "f*uck" over it.

  • That the entire concept of "transgender" is based on delusion [wikipedia.org] of the sufferers — and humoring them by the rest of us — is not obvious yet? And I mean "delusion" as a psychiatric term: "an erroneous belief that is held in the face of evidence to the contrary".

    How is a man "identifying as a woman" — in the face of his own evident penis — any more sane, than one "identifying as Napoleon"?

    Meanings have become so blurred that it's considered bad manners to call bullshit because you might

    • If you read what I wrote, I made it clear that we made a mistake in splitting sex and gender apart.

      However, your definition of a delusion is at odds with the medical community's definition. It's only a problem when it interferes with day-to-day living, behavior, etc. Otherwise religious people would be classified as mentally ill, even though their religion does not cause them distress.

      Also, you fall into the same problem everyone else does - transgender is not the same as transsexual. Get over it already

      • by mi ( 197448 )

        I made it clear that we made a mistake in splitting sex and gender apart.

        That's great! I included a warning against it "just in case" — having seen attempts to distinguish between these synonyms before.

        However, your definition of a delusion is at odds with the medical community's definition.

        It is not "my" definition — it comes straight from the dictionary [princeton.edu], and Wikipedia's entry on the subject defines it the same way. It does not have to be interfering or harmful to be a delusion.

        Otherwise religi

        • First, transgender and transsexual are NOT synonyms. Transgenderists covers a wide range of types, including cross-dressers, gender-fluid, genderfucked, genderqueer, agender, and whatever. Transsexual is a term for a very specific medical condition, not a lifestyle or fetish. This is one of the distinctions that the LGBT have been trying to blur, so that people won't point out that cross-dressing is a sexual paraphilia.

          You REALLY need to read what I wrote instead of assuming before you comment.

          I use the

          • by mi ( 197448 )
            You dodged my request to post your definition of "man" and "woman" and claimed my definition of "delusion" is incorrect. If you wish to continue, we must define terms — any reply not containing these three definitions (with citations of reputable dictionaries) will be returned unopened.
            • You missed my whole point - that whether it's a mental illness or not is totally irrelevant. Irrelevant to the treatment. Irrelevant to how the public should treat us. Personally, I have no problem saying that the resulting stress from being transsexual is a mental issue. You would have known that if you read what I wrote. You would also, if you took the time to understand what I wrote, know that I've already defined sex as well, breaking it into physical sex and perceived sex.
              • by mi ( 197448 )

                that whether it's a mental illness or not is totally irrelevant

                Ah, but it is crucially important to so many different aspects of public life... Sorry, but you can't protest other people's "bigotry", demand "acceptance", organize boycotts, and otherwise make a very real nuisance of yourself over a delusion. A self-perceived "Napoleon" may wear a triangular hat to his heart's content, but he does not get to command armies, however hurtful to his feelings such disrespect may be.

                I've already defined sex as wel

                • You broke your promise. Tsk tsk ...

                  Also, mental illness no longer has anywhere near the public stigma it used to have. Actually, here it has pretty much none - there's been a lot of money spent over the years educating the public as to what mental illness is and removing it from the scary unknown. Plus, since it's illegal here to discriminate against someone with a mental disorder, it's not going to cost you a job unless it affects your ability to do the job after reasonable efforts are made to accommodate

                  • mental illness no longer has anywhere near the public stigma

                    Thank you for admitting, "transgender" really is a mental illness — or, perhaps, merely a symptom of one. Obtaining such an admission really made the "promise-breaking" worth it.

                    it's illegal here to discriminate

                    Yeah, that silly "freedom of association" [wikipedia.org] has always been overrated, has it not?

                    Then again, I live in a modern progressive society, not the USA

                    My condolences and best wishes to anyone living in a society, where the mentally ill make ru

                    • Some forms of transgenderism most cetainly are mental illnesses - the cross-dressers are sexual paraphiliacs, for example. Now as far as transsexuals are concerned, as I wrote, it makes NO difference to the treatment. Call it whatever you will, but sex change operations have a 98% success rate in reducing gender dysphoria without negative side effects. To steal a line from TransAmerica, "Isn't it strange that a physical operation (cross-gender genital surgery) can fix a mental problem?" She was being sarcas

                    • by mi ( 197448 )

                      Some forms of transgenderism most cetainly are mental illnesses

                      Yes, sure. Let me fix it for you: "Some instances of identifying as something different from what one is are more equal than others."

                      Call it whatever you will

                      May I call it "carrots" or "floor-tiles?" Probably not. Why not? "Because words have this remarkable property of possessing specific meanings, we must take care to use the correct ones?" Right?

                      "Mental disorder" is it. And we've already established that, so let's moveon to the new topic:

                      Peo

                    • You didn't "fix it" - you ignored the specific example where cross-dressing is a paraphilia.

                      Also the freedom from association means you're free to withdraw from something to your own private hidey-hole. That's it. Nothing more. However, as an employer (you hire a babysitter), you're not allowed to discriminate. You're free not to hire anyone if you think that's too much of an imposition and do it yourself.

                      That example is apropos because a site that helps people hire nannies refused a customer who wanted s

                    • ... is not only not a natural right ...
                    • by mi ( 197448 )

                      Your freedom to be bigoted is your choice - but there are consequences.

                      Ah, yes, "you can do it, but I'll kill you as a consequence" — the sort of reasoning any authoritarian would love.

                      Then publicly shamed them.

                      "Public shaming" would've been fine. But we both know, it is not merely "shameful" — it is bona fide illegal. And that violates the freedom of association, which — as we've already agreed — naturally includes freedom from association.

                      Also, there is no such thing as "natural ri

                    • See, there's your mistake - claiming that there is a Creator who endows people with special rights. A Creator that, even after all these millennia, there is no proof of. "You have to have faitl." Yeah, riiiight. That same faith argument is equally valid for saying I have faith that there is no Creator.

                      Now, again. find me ONE example of a "natural right." You claimed they exist, but I don't see you showing any proof for it. Even invoking a creator doesn't make it a natural right - created rights are not na

                    • See, there's your mistake - claiming that there is a Creator who endows people with special rights.

                      You've now been defeated on two topic, but wish to try for the third? I'm switching the subject — again — to reflect this.

                      Now, again. find me ONE example of a "natural right."

                      America's Declaration of Independence, already cited, explicitly lists three: "Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness".

                      created rights are not natural if they need a creator.

                      Distinction without difference — as long as th

                    • The american declaration of independence doesn't list any natural rights. The death penalty, war, the food chain, etc., all show that there is no "natural right" to life. The existence of slavery throughout mankind's history shows that there is no "natural right" to liberty. The pursuit of happiness is constrained - ask any slave.

                      You have no proof of your gods existence and anyone else does for theirs. And let's face it - you can't all be right. So all you have is argumentum ad nauseum.

                      And you seem to fo

                    • by mi ( 197448 )

                      The american declaration of independence doesn't list any natural rights.

                      Is this another delusion? I cited the three rights explicitly listed.

                      The death penalty, war, the food chain, etc., all show that there is no "natural right" to life.

                      A person committing a capital crime, or waging an unjust war may lose the right to live. But he is born with it...

                      The existence of slavery throughout mankind's history shows that there is no "natural right" to liberty.

                      False. The right existed — even if it was not prop

                    • None of the rights you existed are in fact natural rights. Just because you or the declaration of independence say so doesn't make it so, and I've provided plenty of examples where these so-called "natural rights" were ignored from the founding of the country to today.

                      There were no gods,no creator, and the lack of proof of same puts it on the same level as claiming natural rights from their existence. Logic fail.

                      Liberty - slaves? The civil war was fought 80 years after the signature of the declaration of

                    • by uncqual ( 836337 )

                      People who wish to discriminate are free to do so in the privacy of their own homes. Elsewhere, no.

                      In the US, that right extends well beyond one's own home. Ten people can get together, rent a space for a meeting (or just all sit together at a large table in a restaurant as long as the owner does not object -- as long as the owner's objection is not based on the people being members of a protected class such as religion, race etc), and invite or exclude anyone they want for any, or no, reason. They can do t

                    • But they can't do so if they are offering a product or service to the general public because of race, religion or lack thereof, language, sex or sexual orientation, or any of the other proscribed reasons.

                      Or did you intentionally miss this:

                      Freedom of association is not the same as freedom to provide a service to a portion of the public based on a protected characteristic.The rules are - you want to provide that good or service, abide by the rules. Otherwise, you will be closed down and someone else will take your place.

                    • by uncqual ( 836337 )

                      In the US, this only applies to commercial entities available to the general public.

                      A entity that provides services, even if commercial, to a membership group can pretty much discriminate however they like by restricting membership (as, obviously, can social clubs, religions, etc). There are a few fringe cases where this is not true, but it's the general rule. I could, if I saw fit, open a private club, only allow atheists (or gays or female or Muslims or Asian-Americans) to join, and charge membership fees

    • What sort of delusion does Joanna Giannouli [bbc.com] suffer from?

      • There have been a few cases like that - I watched the operation to construct a new vagina using a new technique (on Dr. Phil of all places). I don't see any delusions there - it's a medical condition with a protocol for fixing it. I just LOVE science!
  • We know that schizophrenia is a mental illness with its' roots in the physical brain

    He's
    She's
    It's
    His
    Hers
    Its

    As to civil unions and gay marriage, why is discrimination against me not only legal but practiced by governments? Why is it legal to discriminate against single people?

    Why should a married couple earning $50k per year pay fewer taxes than the widow of a soldier with a child who earns the same amount?

    It's unfair and illogical. Two for the price of one sandwiches piss me off, too.

    The government should h

    • je, tu, il, elle, nous, vous, ils, elles. A few more specifiers, and no 'it' in sight when referring to people. I like it that way, since I am not an 'it.' The language just doesn't let people depersonalize someone, just misgender them. :-) However, the apostrophe is completely superfluous (my mistake) - it should be its, plain and simple nowadays.

      I prefer the government to control legal stuff like marriages and unions - think about all the religions that forbid divorce and remarriage, or forbid the woma

      • by mcgrew ( 92797 ) *

        no 'it' in sight when referring to people

        Agreed. "It" is for things, and people are not things. Harry lost his virginity, Mary lost her keys, and the computer lost its internet connection.

        I prefer the government to control legal stuff like marriages and unions

        Why? Why should the government care what my relation to another person is? Unless, of course, discrimination is legal.

        think about all the religions that forbid divorce and remarriage, or forbid the woman to be divorced if her husband doesn't consent.

        E

    • The government should have nothing to do with marriage or any other kind of union.

      You're single, all right. Else you'd not forget that marriage covers a lot more than sleeping arrangements--it's a legally binding contract involving money/property and many other tangibles, as well as a host of rights and obligations the exercise of which have very real consequences, and not only for the marrieds. A key raison d'être for government is the adjudication and enforcement of contracts.

      • by mcgrew ( 92797 ) *

        Else you'd not forget that marriage covers a lot more than sleeping arrangements--it's a legally binding contract involving money/property and many other tangibles, as well as a host of rights and obligations the exercise of which have very real consequences, and not only for the marrieds.

        I was married for 27 years. Were it not for government involvement my marriage would have been over when she walked away from our family for another guy. Obligations? Like not being a serial adulterer? Guess what, NO pena

  • But this is downright awesome. The further our society goes down this line, the more horrified I am of what passes for tolerance these days.

    • There's such a thing as being too politically correct :-) Glad you liked it.
      • I came back here because I just posted this as a link on facebook in a discussion on how T doesn't fit with LGB.

        Re-reading your last part, on T as a Mental Illness- as you know, I am now "ASD Level 1", the thing they renamed Asperger's to when ICD-10 and the DSM-V came into being. I think there is a great deal of bigotry against those suffering from mental illness- including in the LGB community. It's almost as if they know that the removal of homosexuality from the DSM-IIITR was in fact political, not sc

        • 60% of all males experiment with cross-dressing at some point. Women, on the other hand, are always wearing men's clothing without it being seen as exceptional. Jeans, men's oversized football shirt, denim jacket, baseball cap, runners - it's all good.

          Transsexualism is a physical condition. What causes stress, as I explained, is the mismatch between physical sex and the mind's perception of what would be the right sex. We change the physical sex characteristics, the stress disappears, same as if someone is

  • Barbara, I think this is well-written. Thanks for putting it out there.

    I do have some thoughts about a few things, but I'm not going to write about it just yet: it's late where I am (almost 3:30am) and I can barely think straight. I'll follow up on this later.

    • It's not that well-written. I just got to the point where I was so p*ssed off at what is going on that I decided to write a rant. The current situation is so stupid. There's on person who works as a gender therapist who is writing a book called "YOU AND YOUR GENDER IDENTITY: A GUIDE TO DISCOVERY" and yet after 6 years still hasn't figured oot how they want to be addressed or their identity [darahoffmanfox.com]

      As for my preferred pronoun I am accustomed to “she/her” but am in search of a gender neutral pronoun that I am at ease with. For instance on social media I am using “they/them” to see how it feels! I’m definitely uncomfortable with phrases that are, to me, hyper-female such as “ladies” and “ma’am” and the repetitive use of “she/her.” I like how the term “non-binary“ seems to capture my feelings on that.

      I also like to use “queer“ to describe myself as well, as I feel it speaks to my sense of gender as being very much about the combination of the masculine and feminine energies within me, as well as encompassing aspects of my sexual orientation.

      Yet another gay male who hasn't figured things out and would rather hide under the "transgender" label than confront th

  • This is probably not a popular thing to say but I'm gonna say it anyways. As someone who's an outsider but has spent a bunch of time in the midst of the "Queer Community" it's my observation that things started going poorly when people changed their sexuality preferences and gender identifications as a means of gaining popularity or as a fashionable thing to do.

    It's all the rage to have an alternative lifestyle and I'm completely convinced that some have MADE A CHOICE to engage in that lifestyle as a means

    • Why post it AC? The evidence is out there. Transsexuals for the most part KNOW when they're kids that something is wrong. And if they don't know, the other kids will not hesitate to beat it into them that they are different. As for gays, I can't speak from personal experience, but from observation it's the same thing. Just look at any grade school playground - young kids are vicious little animals akin to Lord of the Flies when they think they can get away with it.

      See my comments elsewhere here for the "ge

  • I'm told that people who are born with a gender and grow up earnestly believing that they are, in fact, of the opposite gender, frequently have a body dysmorphia and that appropriate treatment includes cosmetic surgery and medication to give them the appearance of the gender which they earnestly believe themselves to be.

    However, there is another group of people who have a form of dysmorphia and who are treated rather differently by the medical profession; people who are in actual fact rather slim and who ea

    • Because the person with anorexia will die if they don't eat. Eating is the only treatment that keeps them alive despite themselves. One of my sisters has this problem, and thinks that if she's over 90 pounds, she needs to lose weight. She's 5'4 and all skin and bones. She was fed for a while via a feeding tube inserted through the abdomen into her stomach. So, either get them to eat more or keep the feeding tube in (which isn't a long-term solution because the very liquid diet is far from complete over the

      • Because the person with anorexia will die if they don't eat. Eating is the only treatment that keeps them alive despite themselves. One of my sisters has this problem, and thinks that if she's over 90 pounds, she needs to lose weight. She's 5'4 and all skin and bones. She was fed for a while via a feeding tube inserted through the abdomen into her stomach. So, either get them to eat more or keep the feeding tube in (which isn't a long-term solution because the very liquid diet is far from complete over the long term. People need fibre, etc.)

        If we could just graft weight onto them, I'd be quite happy to donate, but it doesn't work that way. Surgery won't fix their body image problems. Different problems, different solutions.

        Right. So the person with gender dysphoria/dysmorphia won't die if they don't get the gender reassignment surgery. Since its destructive surgery its probably best not to do it at all. This relates to my point in the other post; its possibly a violation of the Hippocratic oath. I know its not actually part of the oath itself but its commonly said "First, do no harm".

        • You are ignoring the very high suicide rate among transsexuals who don't get treatment. Surgery is perfectly acceptable under the "harm reduction" model.

          You're also ignoring those who "take matters into their own hands" with a butcher knife. After someone's cut the meat and 2 potatoes off, might as well just finish it properly. Restoring it is just going to lead to the same or worse in the future. Again, no other justification except harm reduction is needed.

          We do destructive surgery all the time on healt

          • Isn't there also a very high rate of suicide among those who have had the surgery?

            • Nope. Not since the '80s. We now don't have the same stigma attached, and people are more supportive. Society has changed for the better, and this is reflected in suicide rates post-op that are no different than the general population.
  • In certain cultures, gender is treated as something which is polar, that there is one gender and there is another, separate gender. In these cultures people are only allowed to be one gender or the other; theres no middle ground.

    It strikes me that there are other cultures in which gender isn't so fixed, isn't so polarized; where people can be seen to be somewhere in between genders, along a continuum.

    In the Western cultures the LGBT problems are, perhaps, being caused by this; people who don't really want t

    • Well, first, we are not in any of those cultures. Second, transsexualism is far from unique to our culture.

      There is nothing wrong with being at one or the other ends of the gender binary. This is what scares the LGBT - that transsexuals reinforce the concept of heteronormal gender identity. Only 18% of male-to-female transsexuals end up lesbian. The whole concept of "straight as a male, straight as a female" threatens them. I was not told to choose - it simplt doesn't work that way. It's no more of a choic

      • I think its really sad and unfortunate that Western and Middle-Eastern cultures don't handle these issues better.

        If these people were born in Polynesian cultures they'd be fa'fafine and have a well-defined place in society. In many cultures these people were a way to bypass certain taboos. For example in some native American cultures women were prohibited from going on extended hunting expeditions and men were prohibited from performing certain kinds of domestic duty. Someone who was both male/female could

  • There is a lot of serious thinking and discussion here. I'm impressed with the effort and skill in which the issues are raised and the many insightful responses.

    There is no lack of thought and consideration in addressing the ideas discussed. Having read all of this I believe that our time and energy spent on this topic, or any other, has a great deal of value, and will ultimately bring us to a deeper understanding of being human.

    This is a process, and sometimes a frustrating experience. Reality is every

    • Did you ever read any sci-fi that dealt with "consensus reality"? Some of that stuff really makes you challenge your assumptions - always a good thing. And yes, this is a process, and sometimes a frustrating experience. Reality is everyone's fault and nobody gets to control it.

      People: can't live with 'em, can't shoot 'em.

      Unfortunately, we're not there yet :-( But we're certainly better than we were a century ago ... and we need to be better over the next century just to survive until then. Unfortunately, we're way past too many tipping points to do s

      • by Bob_Who ( 926234 )

        There definitely will be great transformation. Long ago my sense of reason lost hope with the trajectory and momentum. It feels like watching a train crash in slow motion. But there's this peculiar way that things can suddenly shift right before your eyes, and its still impossible to see because it takes time to settle into the fold. There's a lot of two steps forward and one step backward going on all of the time.

        For some reason, when I feel myself getting bogged down by the futility and despair - or

        • I think that all people have times when they're either stupid, crazy, or full of it, it's just human nature. Learning involves pushing the envelope in different ways. "You can't go to the moon in a rocket. There's nothing for the exhaust to push against in space." "Trains will never run faster than a horse. If they did, all the air would be sucked out and the passengers asphyxiated." "There's only a market for 5 computers in the whole united states." "The black man is intellectually inferior to the white m

          • by Bob_Who ( 926234 )

            Same as the current crop of election slogans. I like that phrase - "the Prophet Carlin."

            Yeah, me too, but honestly, I stole it from Robert Anton Wilson (satirist/intellectual/hippy) in Carlin's league of great minds. Some of his rants are on you tube.

            If it were not for the music and satire spin that they create, I would take it all too seriously all of the time and that's a hopeless feeling.

            Its easier to shake it off intellectually if our culture can aspire to a higher standard than the status quo of cruel shoes.

  • Screw that, and screw the LGBT "community", that loves using us to raise their profile for fund raising purposes and then continues to throw us under the bus. And those bathroom bills the LGBT community is "helping us fight?" Don't need your help.

    So......why did bathrooms recently become such an issue? I would guess that transsexuals have been using whichever bathroom for decades now without any real problems.

    • Transsexuals have indeed been using bathrooms for decades with no hassles. The problem is now that transsexuals are just seen by many as part of the transgendered, who portray this as an attack, for example, on transgenderists who enjoy cross-dressing on the weekend. Cross-dressers have zero reason to be in the women's bathroom if they've got the male dangly bits - let them get their thrills elsewhere. Bathrooms are for peeing - not sexual fetish wish fulfillment.

      These bathroom bills are nothing new. They

"It's what you learn after you know it all that counts." -- John Wooden

Working...