Are you a Homochromosexual?
Did'ja know that there are at least THREE TIMES as many transsexuals in the U.S. military as compared to general American civilian society?
Nobody WANTS to be a transsexual. They're hoping that being in the military will make them into REAL men.
It doesn't work, but along the way they get good training in hand-to-hand combat, individual and crew-served weapons, map reading and land navigation, small-unit tactics, demolitions, and a whole host of other skills, along with the discipline. Just google Diane Schroer to see what I mean.
Oh, by the way, she pays $230 a year for her health care. $230. A. Year. It's one of the bennies for serving for 20 years on Active Duty.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Friday, October 2, 2009
Hmn... I've read a bunch of posts about what shouldn't be done to address bullying of LGBT students. So, please tell me what SHOULD be done to address the bullying. I'd really like to know what should have been done to address the bullying I received as I was growing up.
My mom was given DiEthylStilbesterol (DES), a synthetic estrogen, to take while pregnant with me. It would reduce the chances of miscarriage and promote healthy babies, she was told:
I was like a magnet to the bullies. They couldn't stay away. Being called 'fag' I could ignore, but a coordinated attack by 5 of them suddenly slamming me into a wall, wailing on me for 5 seconds, and then dispersing was difficult to avoid (surprise) and impossible to defend against.
I did fight back. I got good at it. The Principal would usually blame me for starting the fight, which was never the case -- I would receive the punishment(s).
But I won two-thirds of the fights, because I was so enraged at the indifferent cruelty they directed at me. And the third that won their fight with me paid for their victories with visible wounds. I was lucky, luckier than most who are bullied.
My first stepfather was relieved I was standing up for myself -- he was afraid I was turning into a homosexual. He thought it would teach me to be a 'man'. And to maintain and enhance my safety, I joined the Marine Corps, hoping it WOULD make a man out of me. Many of us do join the military for just that reason. There are three times as many transsexuals (in denial) in the United States military as there are in the general civilian population.
DES feminized the brains of one in five 'sons' born to women who took it while pregnant. In contrast, Thalidomide only produced limb deformities in 1 of 10 children whose mothers took it.
So, what should be done to address the bullying? Should it be handled just the way it was in my case, with the adults in charge looking the other way? With parents hoping it might cure me of (they thought) becoming a homosexual? Should children prone to being bullied be educated in segregated facilities, separated from the 'normal' children?
What is your SOLUTION to bullying?
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Monica Helms' piece on stealth at Feministe,
I'm functionally stealth at work -- meaning I don't 'reveal' to each and every client my trans history. If asked, though, I'll answer the question truthfully. There are people at work who know, though. I can well imagine that I get outed quite a bit -- "you see that woman with the big videocamera? Well, she [was born male/is really a man/-(insert your own 'I know what she REALLY is' statement here...)]" It happens, I cant' stop it, no sense worrying about it, and there are enough righteous people who know and don't care to completely outweigh the very few obsessive bigots.
I'm functionally stealth when I buy bread/eggs/milk, or gas, or whatever. I don't reveal. There's no need to, and it would be a breach of society's unspoken etiquette on this topic. If there's not a reason to know, they don't want to know.
I came to the realization that those who are angrily, militantly deep-stealth in almost all circumstances (up to but not always including long-term intimate partners,) are passive-aggressive.
I can well imagine the following internal monologue -- "If they think that 'trannies' are dirty/nasty/sick/etc., I'll show them! I'll pull the wool over their eyes, and have the last laugh!"
I'm a DES 'son'. I've read the research. Girl brains in a boy body. I was force-'masculinized' by well-meaning relatives as well as misguided peers, like almost all transwomen. I think that it is more in keeping with displaying a true feminine nature to accept both your whole self (girl spirit in boy body) and that there will always be that some few who will handle that knowledge badly.
In contrast, militant stealth is hanging on to a masculine need to win at all costs, to 'defeat and vanquish' your enemies. Problem is, everybody outside your HBS/WBT tribe becomes your enemy.
I don't need that mess any more.
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Good editorial here on the attempt to protect transgender rights.
The anti-transgenders took the lead at 3:45 am, and kept it until normal people woke up and started commenting.
I left two comments. The second one is here
While I'm at it, there are some posters here who are clearly disgusted by transgenders. To them, I ask that they please explain how one goes about changing their sex--
-When do they realize that their gender is at odds with their internal sense of which 'team' they best match up with and belong to?
-How long have they pondered making the change before they commit?
-Did they realize all the [animosity] from a significant portion of society they'd have to deal with?
-Did they get their genitals mutilated first? Or were there other steps they needed to complete to prepare for 'getting it cut off'?
-How long does it take to complete the transformation?
-Are you only disgusted by male-to-female transsexuals, or do you save some revulsion for female-to-male transsexuals?
-Do you know how to spot a female-to-male transsexual?
-What is the success rate of ANY form of treatment that has the goal of preventing someone who is experiencing gender disphoria (what some of the lay folk call 'gender confusion',) from making the attempt to change their sex?
-What is the rate of undesirable outcomes, such as depression, suicidal ideation or successful suicide, from the above treatments meant to 'cure' the gender disphoric of their 'gender confusion'?
(If any would like to add to this list of questions, please do so. ~Hazumu)
Sunday, July 26, 2009
The post titled
Here's my reply. The blog has moderation on. And with my sharp, sarcastic and snarky tone, I kind of doubt the blog owner will have the guts to allow posting.
Your headline is a statement which is deceptively phrased as a question.
Factually, Chas has never become successful like his famous mother. Please cite where Chas has said that this is a goal of his — to become famous like his mother.
Factually, cross-gender hormone therapy that is pursued long enough will indeed produce effects that are irreversible. Please provide evidence you use to support your suggesting that Chas will regret irreversibly changing his body.
It is factually correct that the APA classifies GID as a ‘disorder’. But this classification medicalizes the transition, and provides legitimate avenues to transitioners to receive medical care and supervision in their transition.
In referring to the gender reassignment surgeries, you use a term that has a negative connotation and is emotionally loaded — ‘mutilation.’
Additionally I see no evidence you have any concept of GRS procedures used on female-to-male transitioners. How many male-to-female transitioners have a phallus surgically constructed? Most? Half? Some?
That you lack basic understanding of the transgender experience is evident from your post. I urge you to get ‘Transgender 101′ before attempting to write another post on a subject for which you have very little factual information.
And when you do write another post, please work harder at losing the ‘ohMiGawd!! trnsgenders are just so ICKY!!’ tone that I felt this piece contained in spades…
Sunday, July 19, 2009
Both Illinois U.S. Senators Dick Durbin and Roland Burris supported providing federal monies to states and local jurisdictions to prosecute "hate crimes" based on an individual's "perceived or actual" sexual orientation, opening the way for federal protection for transgenders, cross-dressers, bisexuals and sexually- confused persons.The mainstream media isn't stroking their bigotry hard enough, so they're going to the Concerned Women of America for their fix...
I'm a retired Sergeant First Class. I enlisted in the United States Marine Corps in 1975, and became an Aviation Ordnance Munitions technician. I finished my four-in-the-corps and did various odd jobs for 5 years before enlisting in the Army.
I was a company clerk, then Supply Sergeant in Combat Engineers, before reclassifying as a Military Journalist/Broadcaster. In 1999, my unit was sent to Bosnia (while it was a combat zone.) I got paid $900 combat pay and paid no federal income tax for the nine months we were there. I was aware that my broadcast videocamera was an attractive bullet-magnet whenever our mission took us outside the wire.
I was on duty on 11 Sep 01. I coordinated liaison with local broadcast and print media, scheduling access to subject-matter experts, facilitating the flow of critical information to the public.
I retired in late 2002 and went to college. But I found a civilian position at a nearby military installation, and am once again a broadcaster/journalist.
By the way, about three years ago, I (finally) had my epiphany, and began the long process of changing my gender. I still have the same job (with a couple of promotions) that I had when I started. But I have a new gender-appropriate name, and use the other restroom.
Three other members of my old active-duty major command have also made the gender switch. Four of us. That we know of. In a 2000-soldier command.
Thank us for our service. We each gave 20+ years defending our nation. We deserve the respect.
We deserve being treated as equals to you.
Friday, June 26, 2009
First: "Tranny', when applied to a car, is slang for transmission. But 'tranny' when applied to a human being is derogatory and implies that the person so labeled is less than human.
Second: The article said "In essence, the federal government ended up paying for the sex change operation and a lifetime supply of makeup," which trivializes the the salary that was denied to COL Schroer by the wrongful actions of Library of Congress.
Third: The figure of 1 in 11,000 was arrived at with little or no rigorous research -- and in fact may have been chosen for political purposes so as to minimise the issue.
Professor Lynn Conway has performed a more rigorous, repeatable and verifiable study in which she polled those surgeons who perform Gender Reassignment Surgery. Based on the number of surgeries performed on male-bodied American citizens, she came up with a lower bound of 1 in 2,500 and an upper bound of 1 in 500 male-bodied American citizens between the ages of 18 and 65 have HAD Gender Reassignment Surgery.
Let's pick a number close to the lower bound -- say, 1 in 2,000. That's 5 times more than the outdated figure of 1 in 11,000 this article quotes.
And it means there are at least around 150,000 male-to-female American citizens alive today.
How about 1,350 male-to-female transgender employees? And the APA figures for female-to-male are even worse. Trans-men (female to male) are a lot harder to spot. They get deep male voices and grow beards and get male-pattern baldness. They pass much better and are much harder to spot and count.
This article repeats innuendo, half-truths, misconceptions and some outright lies, presented in a snarky manner that denies the humanity of a transgendered person. Please prepare for an onslaught. Better yet, take this page down and turn off commenting.
Sunday, June 14, 2009
Discussing the “transgender dilemma”
I posted the below comment, but it hasn't yet appeared. So, I suspect comment moderation is on.
There are women who are born with XY chromosomes:
There are other possibilities besides XX=female and XY=male:
47,XXY, 47,XYY, 48,XXXY, 48,XXYY, 49,XXXXY, mosaic 46,XY/47,XXY, 47,XXX, 48,XXXX, 45,X...
There is also XX Male Syndrome:
You may be a 'Homochromosexual'
The protogonads in a fetus differentiate for boys at around 7 weeks gestation into testes. At 15 weeks, the now-developed testes pump out testosterone, masculinizing the brain (if all goes right).
But there are things that can interfere with this process. Many pregnant women were given the drug Diethylstilbesterol (DES) to reduce the risk of miscarriage and 'promote healthy babies'. Here's a study that finds a strong correlation that the males that resulted from the pregnancy where DES was used have been transsexualized by the drug. The rate of a "DES Son" being transsexualized is 1 in 5. In contrast, the deformities caused by Thalidomide were only 1 in 10.
But there are transsexuals in the bible. They just aren't called 'transsexual', (a word coined in the 20th century,) but were referred to as 'eunuchs', for want of a better term.
Let not the eunuch say, 'Behold, I am a dry tree.' For thus says YAHWEH: 'To the eunuchs who keep my sabbaths, who choose the things that please me and hold fast my covenant, I will give in my house and within my walls a monument and a name better than sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name which shall not be cut off.' -- Isaiah 56:3-5
For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it. -- Matthew 19:21
Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning with this scripture he told him the good news of Jesus. And as they went along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, 'See, here is water! What is to prevent my being baptized?' And he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him. -- Acts 8:35-38
Monday, June 1, 2009
Then I posted this:
[QUOTE who="Emelye Waldherr"]I see a lot of ignorance and emotional garbage being thrown around as excuses to oppose this nondiscrimination law but I see no logical rational arguments. Figures, because there really aren't any.[/QUOTE]
Actually, the Right Wing Authoritarians (the psychologist's terminology for the people you describe,) DO have a 'logic' to their stance.
Progressives and conservatives might as well be from different planets. Each thinks the other is ignorant/stupid/crazy/insane.
with the article titled, "Would You Slap Your Father? If So, You’re a Liberal".
Conservative worldview is built on reverence for established authority and order, and conservatives experience a much higher level of disgust at things that don't fit that worldview. For instance, if they watch someone melt chocolate (under scrupulous sanitary conditions,) and pour the chocolate into scrupulously sanitized molds, they will refuse to eat the chocolate when they discover the mold produces chocolate that LOOKS like cat or dog dung. It's pure chocolate, but the resemblance produces a disgust reaction they can't get over. Similarly, there are insects that are actually nutritious, and there are cultures that consume them. But a conservative with a super-sensitive disgust-ometer will not eat insects that have been thoroughly sterelized in an autoclave, no matter how hungry they are. They won't eat soup that has been stirred with a brand-new, never used and thoroughly sterilized before use toilet bowl brush. You get the idea...
Their world-order has no homosexuals (and to them, transsexuals are industrial-strength homosexuals.) They experience an extreme disgust reaction when they are made aware of or in the presence of a transsexual.
Part of that reaction is the hyper-sexualization of transsexuals. They can't not think of having intercourse with the transsexual (it's enticing, because of their hypersexualization of transsexuals.) and they have a simultaneous reaction of extreme disgust.
No wonder they react violently.
And that's why their attempts at logically and rationally defending their position are so pathetic.
Friday, May 22, 2009
|Protecting 30 Bizarre "Sexual Orientations" And "Gender Identity"|| || || |
May 21, 2009
Wait, let's get the full URL out here...
They have a directory called 'culture-wars'. Ni-i-ice...
Here's some of what they're about;
- The main purpose of this "hate crime" legislation is to add the categories of "sexual orientation" and "gender identity," "either actual or perceived," as new classes of individuals receiving special protection by federal law. Sexual orientation includes heterosexuality, homosexuality, and bisexuality on an ever-expanding continuum. Will Congress also protect these sexual orientations-zoophiles, pedophiles or polygamists?But basically this place is just reposting Lew Sheldon's Traditional Values Coalition. RightSideNews doesn't have any editorial depth.
Gender identity includes such gender confused behaviors as cross-dressing, she-male, drag queen, transvestite, transsexual or transgender. Under the Act, neither "sexual orientation" or "gender identity" are really defined. How can a law be enforced if the new classes receiving special protection remain undefined?
Here's my reply. Moderation appears to be on.
"Inevitably this will negatively affect the performance of co-workers who are forced to work alongside of individuals with bizarre sex habits."
Who defines what a 'bizarre sex habit' is? Ladies, if you knew how 'the guys' talk about women when they're in all-male spaces. Some would describe very vile and degrading things they wanted to do to women. The scary part is that none of the other guys would step up and tell them that kind of treatment, or even talking about it, is wrong, demeaning and dehumanizing. They were enabling the ones who were describing the filthy, degrading acts they'd like to do to women.
This by far is the bigger, more pervasive problem.
Gender Identity: Should we let kids be who they are ‘inside’?
in Morality and Values, news and society on May 20, 2009 at 6:00 am
The writer (and many of the commenters) insist on referring to the two trans girls they write about using male pronouns -- 'boy' 'he' 'him' 'his' -- while talking about how much 'compassion' they have for the children.
Then there are the commenters that call allowing these children to be who they truly are 'morally wrong', 'child abuse' and all the other comments we have come to know and love.
Here is my post. Moderation is enabled, so let's see if it get's published on their site:
The complexity of the human being allows for the possibility that on rare occasions perfectly healthy humans can be born with ambiguous genitalia. They are called 'intersex'. But for some reason, we humans have this need to perform surgery on infants who exhibit visible intersex traits to 'fix' them
First, if the plumbing is otherwise functional, there's nothing to 'fix'. And second, surgically correcting the genitalia to one or the other ideal is a coin toss. Sometimes they match the childs' inner sense of gender, sometimes they trap the child in the wrong body. Then you really did create a transsexual through what you believed to be well meaning action.
The other bit of intersex is that brains are dimorphic. There really are girl brains and boy brains. And the recipe for making either (in the womb) is fraught with opportunities for unexpected results. Unexpected, unlikely, but not impossible.
At LEAST 97% of us survive the process and are happy to have the bodies we have, and the societal-assigned gender roles that go along with those bits of external flesh. We can't imagine any other way, and so must believe that our reality is true for 100% of folks.
Back to that bit about boy and girl brains. At what age were you sure you were the gender you were? Could ANYBODY convince you you weren't what you were, that maybe just maybe, you really belonged to the other 'team'? Psychologists who study the nature of gender say that our sense of gender is consolidated and unshakable between the ages of 4 and 6 (with a minor bit of statistical 'tail' extending outside that range.) Basically, by age six, almost no child is 'confused' about his or her gender. Including the transgendered.
Transgendered children also know who they really are. And they are painfully aware that it's not what nearly everybody is telling them they 'must' be. They don't 'get over it' or grow out of it. They only suppress it as best they can. Most are driven slowly crazy over time by the pressure to hold it in and conform. Some deal with it by acting out, some through drugs, and a fair percentage though suicide (31% is quoted, though I don't have the link to the authoritative piece at hand.)
Some of the pressure is provided by the use of improper pronouns, such as in the main article of this blog entry. The writer was scrupulous in referring to the subject child (as well as the child pictured in the illustration) by the biological sex of their bodies. I know from personal experience it is wearing and toxic to be subject to that sort of treatment.
The one treatment that is 98% effective in providing transgendered people a normal quality of life is for them to live as their true gender. And true gender resides in the brain, and has been found by the medical community to be non-negotiable. And God knows they've tried in earnest for the past 60 years. Talk therapy: FAIL, Electro-convulsive therapy: FAIL, Pharmacology (including extremely powerful (and addicting) anti-psychotics)): FAIL, Aversion therapy (nauseating drugs, electrodes delivering painful shocks to the genitals, etc.): FAIL, Neurosurgery (up to and including lobotomy): EPIC FAIL.
You want these children to live their lives to the fullest potential, to thrive rather than wither and waste? You can start by treating with respect their innate sense of gender rather than forcing your concepts upon them.
And you can start that by the respectful use of female pronouns with the two subject children in this article.
A little paunch won't trouble me, much, but man breasts or that white stuff that builds in the corners of older guys' mouths are deal breakers. The only young people who have those conditions are transgender candidates or on antipsychotics.
Why do they do that -- assume that it's okay to assign whatever they consider to be bad traits to transgenders? Is it because we won't mind? Is it our job and duty (or something) to be the 'duty scumbag' for those 'fellow' human beings who need to cast others into the role of subhuman other for their life-movie? And why must she make a special category for us with the word 'only' and then pair us with those who have a need for chemical straitjackets? Why, why, why?!?
Here's my response (the extended dance mix, as HuffPo only allows 250 words):
It was a good article. I rather enjoyed it.
All except for one part. The part where you ascribe undesirable qualities in your potential mates to, as you put it, 'transgender candidates'.
I'm transgender -- to be precise, a post-op male-to-female transsexual.
A comedian once said that the words 'banana' and 'car keys' were inherently funny, and should be worked into the punchline of jokes, to make them funnier. So, has the word 'transgender' also earned that dubious distinction as a 'secret ingredient' designed to elicit a chuckle?
I'm not laughing. I'm living the other side of your 'funny' coin -- the hate, the bigotry, the being automatically assigned traits such as 'crazy', 'psychotic', 'sexual predator (keep your kids away!)'. Bills that would grand me and others like me the protection to live a life as normal as yours are routinely shot down by the simple expedient of labeling them "The Bathroom Bill" (and do you know how many "The Bathroom Bill"s have been shot down to 'keep the crazy transgenders away from my daughter' in the last year?)
Granted, the traits you assign in this article -- the sins of "man breasts or that white stuff that builds in the corners of older guys' mouths" -- are minor, and thus 'silly'. But you call them deal breakers, and then add injury to your assault/insult of transgenders by saying that these traits are "only" found among young transgender candidates and paring them with those who must take crazy-meds.
I would have sent this to your private e-mail, but couldn't google one. So I'll call out your casual denigration of the transgender community here.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
LEGISLATION pending before Congress would dramatically expand the federal hate-crimes law, and a number of critics are concerned that the bill goes too far. Perhaps the real problem is that it doesn't go far enough.
Under current law, crimes motivated by bias against a victim's race, color, religion, or national origin can be prosecuted by the federal government, so long as the victim had been engaged in a "federally-protected activity" - attending a public school, for example, or being in a place of public accommodation or entertainment. The proposed Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act, which passed the House last month and is pending in the Senate, would significantly broaden the federal government's reach.
Here's my comment:
I lo-o-ove that 'thought crime' meme -- makes it seem so '1984', doesn't it? Guvva'mint gonna run around cracking down on whoever the crybabies say is, y'know, messin' with them, right? And, *heck*, they probably deserved getting cracked in the first place -- they shouldn't have left the straight-and-narrow. They'll throw preachers in jail for quoting the, y'know, -truth- of Genesis 19, Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, 1 Timothy 1:9-10, and Jude 1:7 (the major 'clobber passages.) There are other variations on the meme, but you get my point.
So, why does the hate crime legislation clearly state in Section 8: Rule of Construction "Nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by this Act, shall be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct protected from legal prohibition by, or any activities protected by, the Constitution." --Does not prohibit expressive conduct protected by the constitution, i.e., First Amendment Freedom of Expression.
So, you preachers can continue to say that all homosexuals (including the Texting Trolly Driver) are going to hell, and y'all'd help if it were not 1) un-christian and 2) a garden-variety punishable violent crime.
But what then does the Hate Crime bill do? Say you're a small-town with a small town budget. A couple of the locals get a little, say, too 'frisky' with another local who's been called (First Amendment) a 'freak', or worse. The victim ends up in ICU, then the morgue.
Worse yet, the damned liberal media gets ahold of the story, and now all eyes are on your town to do this case right. And now investigation and prosecution is going to be a fiscal budget-buster. This happened in a small town. They had to furlough four police officers to pay for the investigation and trial -- all of it under the watchful eyes of the media, so they had to do it right, well, and spend the money regardless. The deputies got furloughed for the duration.
The Hate Crimes bill provides fed funds to cover the expenses of investigation and prosecution (and I'm sure a clever accountant can maximise the costs billable to the feds...)
Then imagine you're a normal person, except you (and 3 percent of the population) have left your birth religion to become a member of another religion. After that, while a majority of folks either don't mind your conversion or dislike you for it but see it as none of their business, there is a minority that starts to taunt you. Occasionally, it goes beyond taunts. The attacks come suddenly. You're getting off a subway, and you get hit behind and knocked to the platform by 6 guys yelling religious epithets, and end up getting stitches for the gash one boot to your head opened up.
At the hospital, you try to file a police report, but the cop as much as says forget it, you shouldn't have been there, and anyway, you changed religions and thus probably deserved it.
Amongst the other converts in your religion, stories are told of similar attacks. You know of murders where, although there are credible witness who testify the assailant(s) shouted religious epithets while beating the victim to death, the assailant was acquitted of the charges -- because they 'panicked' when they found out the victim had changed religions.
Y'all are really scared. People in your sect are being harassed, and injured, and killed -- and while the authorities in your town or city seem to be efficient at capturing, trying and convicting the perps in other cases that don't involve 'your kind', they always seem to drop the ball when the case involves one of the members of your sect.
Yeah, there are laws on the books for those crimes. But they don't mean *squat* because they're not being enforced. Or, rather, they're being selectively inforced, and your group/kind always seem to be selected against.
You wish that those laws would be equally enforced when it involves one of the members of your sect.
So. What's your solution? How do you provide that the law is enfoced equally, so as not to appear to disfavour the members of your religion who converted from their birth religion. People are dying here, it needs to stop.
What are you gonna do?
I await your solutions.
That was quick. A yahoo took the bait. Here's the Tit-fer-tat.
"Hazumu-- So, we have laws that are NOT enforced and therefore we need MORE laws that, for some reason, WILL be enforced now? OOOKAY."
Didn't say 'not enforced'. I said Selecively Enforced. I said that there are places where 'the law' ignores violence done to marginalized groups. A f@g is beat up and, despite credible witnesses, the 'law' declares "lack of evidence" and ignores the crime. It ends there? That's what you're saying. Sorry, there's laws against what happened to you, but you (and 'your kind') are not getting any, so go away.
Look up Brandon Teena. The sheriff didn't investigate his claim of being beaten and raped, citing 'lack of evidence.' The evidence included a rape kit that was taken and then subsequently 'disappeared.' You say, end of game, sorry? There's a law against assault and rape -- it wasn't enforced. And when the rapists found out Brandon had gone to the cops, they came back and killed him. Why not? The cops didn't do anything to them, citing 'lack of evidence'. Why not kill him?
What if you were the victim of an assault, and the cops declined to do anything about it? Great law, that. But you were assaulted, and they f#<%ed you up real bad. And now they're going to get away with it. USARMY1, I hope you have demo training, because that's the only way you're going to balance the books. But if you go seeking revenge, your small-town cops might find out it was you getting even, and then they'll throw the book at YOU. Why not let the feds come in and make sure the scales of justice work as advertized, rather than having the thumb of ingrained bigotry and prejudice weighing against you?
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Sorry, you have been blocked from commenting on this site.Anyway, here's my comment to Zoe Brain's comment:
Zoe, you are as the lone voice crying out in the wilderness.
I doubt that those who believe HB415 to be 'the bathroom bill' (and federal S.909 and H.R.1913 the 'pedophile protection act') will pay attention to your facts and figures -- no matter how accurate and scientific they may be, and how rigorous you are in presenting only tested, supportable information.
These are people who would outlaw the teaching of Evolution in favour of creationism, who would ban educating teenagers on all but abstinence as a method of birth/STD control, who would implement christian 'sharia' law, who would 're-educate' LGBT under penalty of law if they but could.
Something from my youth -- I remember being denied the opportunity to compete fairly with other 'classmates' in intellectual activities. I was capable of making significant contributions to a group that was, say, working on a project for science class, or researching a topic for history. I could make a significant contribution, but I was marginalized. The Alpha members of the group would either ignore my contributions or take them and claim them as their own work (don't worry, I learned how to fight back and sabotage their efforts after a few such experiences.)
The point of this is that it is as if a portion of society wants to 'win' against transgenders disqualification, leaving them the scraps of a menial minimum-wage job.
Zoe, do you have information on the median IQ of the transgender community? We've produced some pretty outstanding people, in spite of the artificial hobbling we as a community have received from society.
Lynn Conway contributed the way to millions of transistors per 'chip' which is embodied in the laptop I use to write this. And the successes she posts on her site are from highly professional career fields.
It must be that there are those who need a bogey-man. They are the ones who are labeling us things that we are not, and treat us as untouchable castes in other societies past and present, doing the unpleasant things and leaving the 'betters' feeling good about themselves.
Well, if we provide them such a service, what would a fair, respectable and equitable compensation be?
Saturday, May 9, 2009
A feminist perspective on Politics & Culture
It appears there is a desperate need for a scapegoat in society. Normal-appearing gays and lesbians have managed to begin moving into the mainstream, but the need still remains.
‘Trannies’ still have that “ikk” cachet, so we (as a society) still have someone to choose against. It’s like the line in “Blazing Saddles” where the townspeople need help, and get an offer from a diverse group of non-white-non-protestant ‘undesirables’, the catch being that the white-protestant townspeople have to let them live amongst them after the aid is rendered. Finally, the spokesman says, “All right… we’ll give some land to the n*****s and the c****s. But we don’t want the Irish!”.
Same story. Some group has to be made into the losers. As the straight-normal-appearing gays and lesbians walk into the light, there is a concerted campaign to paint the transgenders as uber-icky. We trans seem to be receiving the revulsiveness that gays and lesbians are finally managing to shed.
As there seems to be a need for someone to be untouchable caste and to carry away an imagined stench from the rest of society, might we quietly invest in some sort of social programs to provide humane support and a modicum of dignity to trans persons while we serve the societal purpose of being the ones it’s okay to reject and deny membership in society to?
Just a thought…
Hazumu the SmartA**
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
He said, in reference to Col Diane Schroer winning a judgment of a half-million dollars in her discrimination case:
You could also view this as a violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act, since Shroer is an amputee.
"The inmates are running the asylum."
Yeah, and they have very good skills with demolitions, weapons, tactics, and hand-to-hand fighting.
Another scary thought: The military actually ATTRACTS transgenders. See -- it's called 'the male protest' by the part of the medical community that specializes in gender issues and provides medical supervision and services to transitioners.
Basically, you're born with the wrong brain for your body. You naturally want to behave in a certain manner, but parents, relatives -- in fact a vast conspiracy by society -- won't let you be yourself. You get punished for behaving 'that way'
So, if you got stuck with female brains in a male body, the military looks GREAT! Maybe all that MACHO will cure you once and for all.
But, there's nothing to cure. So joining the military (or getting married, or doing extreme sports,) can't fix what ain't broken.
But we pick up great skills along the way (and some of them can be quite lethal...)
I was a part of a 2,000-soldier major command in the army. I'm one of four transwomen (male-to-female transsexuals.)
Two of them I personally know from active duty. The third, we know so many people in common we wonder why our paths never crossed.
4 in 2,000. One in 500. Three of us are 'amputees', the fourth is stalled due to economic problems.
And we have all been to leadership and management training, so we're well-qualified to run the asylum you yourselves are also members of.
Have a nice day...
Sunday, April 5, 2009
scroll down page
The TeleTalk question: Is anti-discrimination protection for transsexuals a relevant issue for New Hampshire?
Call 356-2550 all day Saturday and Sunday and leave your comments on our machine. You may fax your response at 356-8360 or send E-mail to DailySun@mountwashingtonvalley.com. Results are published on Tuesday.
It's a relevant issue.
Transgenders are fired for transitioning. Or not hired. They are denied housing. Sometimes they pass just fine, and are accepted as the gender they are presenting (female-to-male transgenders, especially.) But then somehow their trans history becomes known. Coworkers suddenly shun them and treat them as second-class undesirables with impunity.
The trans worker is no less able to carry out their job than they were before the 'discovery'. But now, coworkers can treat the trans-person in a disrespectful manner, bosses can demote/discipline/fire the trans person, landlords can evict or deny housing. Because they now 'know'.
One assumption appears to be that it's easy for a man to dress up as a woman. I would encourage all who wish to prove that it is to try it.
Another is that males who want to be women are somehow crazy and we must do everything in our power to prevent them from behaving like women. Sorry. there is an exponentially growing stack of research that concludes that a percentage of humans are born with brains hard-wired for the sex opposite to their bodies. One of the best collections to this research is at http://aebrain.blogspot.com/2009/02/evidence.html
Finally, is the opposition to this discrimination protection really about attempting to deny 'sexual predators' a loophole, or is it really about maintaining the 'right' to punish with impunity trans-persons for attempting to go against society and be/become who they truly are?
Karen J. Savage
P.S., I'm posting this e-mail in several places on the internet as evidence I wrote and submitted it.
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Clinically/academically, you're right about transsexual vs. transgender.
You can be right, and still lose, though.
Use [Google blog search (beta)] to look up Transgender. There are 461,684 page hits. Most of them are about trans rights, and transition, and where do I get hormones/counseling/etc.
Now search transsexual. 380,343 page hits, with words like horny, slut, fetish, and a lot, lot worse.
I'm a DES son. Mom went to medical school, we always had a PDR in the house. I'm post-op. I transitioned on the job and still work there. I'm not a horny slutty [____] (etc, etc, etc,) but a valued employee.
In a perfect world, transsexual and transgender would mean what you say they mean. But they don't yet, and they won't for a while. Meanwhile, to those co-workers for whom my transition is still a big deal, I'm 'transgender', because it ain't got nuthin' ta' do with SEX.
If that's' what it takes to keep the peace in my little corner of the cosmos...
Sunday, March 8, 2009
Frank2; Say the defendant found out that Angie was a trans-woman (male body, okay?) while she was at work. Say he waited around for her to get home after ascertaining this bit of information. How is it murder-second? He had plenty of time to just leave. But (in this hypothetical situation) he stayed -- why? In an earlier news story, it was reported he had said to a female friend at the jail (where they monitor the conversations,) "Gay things must die."
Different hypothetical. Andrade was clueless when Angie came home. Somehow he found out Angie was pre-op (meaning, she had not had the sex change operation and thus still had her male junk.) Please tell me just how he found out. Did he grab her crotch? Did it feel like any other male's crotch? Why would touching something like that automatically make his actions murder-two and not murder-one? Please explain...
Saturday, March 7, 2009
I love that "everyone has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex, so no one's rights are denied" argument.
Let's turn it inside out.
Let's say that everyone had a right to marry someone of the same sex, and there was a constitutional amendment that said marriage was ONLY two men or two women, thus denying legality to man+woman marriages.
Now, you're attracted to the opposite sex. But the law forbids you to get married to the partner you're attracted to.
But, hey, you can get married to someone of your gender, right? What's the big deal? It's legal. I'm sure you'll find someone you'll like spending an intimate 10+ years with. And the official union comes with over 1350 beneficial federal and state rights! What? You're attracted to a member of the opposite sex? That's not allowed!
If you're opposite-sex oriented, you probably feel a certain revulsion to the idea of entering into a marriage to someone of the same sex.
Same-sex oriented folk feel the same way about entering into opposite-sex intimate pairings.
Put yourself in their shoes, and try to see how ingenuous and hurtful that 'no rights are denied' argument is.
And let's add another wrinkle. I'm a male-to-female transsexual who's had the sex-change operation. Who should I marry? Someone opposite to my current presentation, or someone opposite to my birth-sex? If I prefer guys, am I 'straight' or 'gay'? If I prefer gals, am I 'straight' or 'lesbian'?
And if I 'choose right' for a particular jurisdiction, will my marriage be recognised should we move to a state, county or city that interprets my gender differently?
I'd love to hear your comments on that question;
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Is Gay the Way?
Oh. My. God. Gerren, you have truly let your anxieties out. Have you ever been told, "Whatever you do, for the next thirty seconds, DON'T think of an elephant!" You of course, hearing the word 'elephant', automatically think of a big grey pachyderm.
Homosexuality is the same way for you. When you even think of two guys in the same kind of relationship that cross-gender couples are encouraged and even celebrated to have, your mind immediately thinks of [_______] and [_______] and [_______], doesn't it. Face it, YOU filled in those blanks with something much more disturbing to you than I could ever describe. Don't think of an elephant!
TEH GAYZ are not throwing it in your face, YOU are throwing it in your face. You can get away with hugging, kissing and even some pretty steamy making out in public with your girlfriend. You can keep a picture of her with you, and show your buds, and even talk proudly about the nasty you got last night (if they're close enough friends, of course.)
A gay male dares to hold hands with his intimate partner, and you flip They're quite robustly throwing what they do in privacy in your face? Who started it?. Don't think of an elephant!
Then you bring up that old saw that a transgender is somehow 'super-gay', and is an extreme but natural progression. NEWS FLASH! Gays/lesbians and transgenders don't mix. They are not naturally alike. They are different There are gays and lesbians that are revolted by transgenders as much as you. Don't think of an elephant!
Then there's the loss of 'pen is' anxiety that thinking of transgenders brings on. "The surgery' actually preserves almost all of the nerve-ending-bearing outer tissue, and places it, nerves and all, in the anatomically correct position. Just like you, gays are happy they have a 'pen is', and wouldn't give it up because they are men where it counts, between the ears. (Don't think of an elephant!)
Sunday, February 8, 2009
The words in your post, "I really try never to judge people" are disingenuous. I expect to hear "Some of my best friends are (fill in the blank)..." next.
You also have it wrong with your speculation on female-to-male transsexuals -- they are those in the lesbian community that see them as traitors.
I don't know how to take your comment about the over-6-foot-tall transwoman, but it sure sounds like a condemnation following your comment "not telling someone you actually used to be a man is deplorable" At what point do I tell my potential intimate partners?
The below is a canned textfile that neatly sums up the view from my shoes, provides a little background, and asks some other questions.
The favour of your reply is requested;
May I interject a real life situation. I’d like to hear your guidance on this.
My mother was given a drug to take to lessen the chance of miscarriage and promote healthy babies — that’s what the doctor told her. The drug is Diethylstilbestrol, or DES. In male fetuses, it feminizes the brains of one in five of us ‘DES sons’.
I finally came to terms with this, and realized my choice was transition or die. So, I’m now a male-to-female transsexual who’s had ‘the operation.’ I’ve changed all my legal paperwork and although I still have a male body with XY chromosomes, it has been retrofitted to approximate female anatomy, which is good because if I ever end up in an accident, there will be no ’surprise’ for the first responders.
I ‘pass’ very well, thank you. Only rarely do strangers figure out I was not born this way. Most people have to be told, by me, or, more often, by someone else who just has to ‘drop the bomb.’
All my paperwork has been changed. Legally, I'm female. But I have to find an OB/GYN who can check my prostate during my yearly pelvic exam (yearly mammograms don't need that level of disclosure.)
So my question to you is — knowing what you know now about me, and assuming for the moment you get absolute power to label me and make determinations on where I can and can't go —
-Do I marry a man? Or do I marry a woman? If I like guys, am I gay? If I like women, am I lesbian?
-Which restroom and changing facility do you feel I, a male-to-female transsexual, should use when in public spaces?
I eagerly await your responses;
ADDENDUM: The blogger turned on moderation, so I lost a rejoinder to her reply to my comment. That'll teach me to be more careful.
Saturday, February 7, 2009
The Conservative Taleban is praying for the ECONOpocalypse.
The Conservative Taleban wishes for the end to all social programs, and are hoping such an economic collapse will bring that about -- after all, social programs take money from the RIGHTeous Rich and give it to all those who lacked the morality to earn it for themselves.
In the ECONOpcalypse, the RIGHTeous Rich will be rewarded for their sterling adherence to THE morality by being able to acquire and own much more of our great, godly nation.
And there are those such as our own AnonBigot who will support such a RIGHTeous endeavour -- even as he is losing his job, and his car, and his house, and his life savings, and is succumbing to a sickness for which there is a reasonable treatment available but for which he cannot afford (because he 'temporarily' lacked enough of THE morals to RIGHTfully deserve these things -- but he'll work harder to get ahead and get RIGHTeous, and show Them (whoever They are.))
And he'll be glad to be alive and witness the cleansing ECONOpocalypse.