Friday, June 26, 2009

Obama to trannies: I've got your back

Obama to trannies: I've got your back

A very snarky piece, filled with misinformation (and disinformation.) Here's my comment

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 That's 5 times more than the outdated figure of 1 in 11,000 this article quotes.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.

Very respectfully;


Sunday, June 14, 2009

Discussing the “transgender dilemma”

I'm skeptical that anybody is discussing a subject that has scare quotes around it.

Over at
Evangelical Village
Discussing the “transgender dilemma”

I posted the below comment, but it hasn't yet appeared. So, I suspect comment moderation is on.

TO: Tiro;

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'

And furthermore;

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

State Must Extend Legal Protections To Transgender Residents

State Must Extend Legal Protections To Transgender Residents

The RWAs are out in force in the comments section. I've been doing battle off and on for a couple of days.

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.

Start here:
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.