I don't think you're responding to what you quoted. I wrote about the difference between fitting into and not fitting into societal norms. I'm not sure what you're talking about.

Also, it's probably a bad idea to try to pin the relativist label on me, as it won't fit... FYI

How do you define what makes a thumb a thumb? It is what it is. If you cut it off and sew it onto your forehead, it does not become a surgically modified forehead apparatus; it is still a thumb. And it is sticking out of your forehead. And just because the majority of society does not accept this as normal does not mean they have hateful or even harmful views.


How a person feels about themselves does not define their gender. I wish I was a midget. But cutting off my legs won't make me into one. No matter what I tell myself. ("From the moment he was born...he always thought he should have been shorter. Finally, at age 71, he decided to take matters into his own hands... ") It will just make me a confused man who decided to have his legs cut off.

You are factually wrong here. It absolutely IS a matter of opinion and interpretation. Which is why we are having this discussion. Or did you write the book?


Semantics.

And if the female teachers in the school are uncomfortable with that arrangement, I'm sure it's "their problem," not MacBeth's.


It's been said many times, many ways, but our president's assessment is as good as any:

You gave motives to each, you claimed one was trying to shock and another was trying to fit in.

Yet both make them happy and both are shocking to the 'norm'.

You decided which was right and which was wrong based on your own values you decided it was ok for one and not the other.

Are you superior to a mother who doesn't want a transexual teaching her children?

"It is what it is" isn't a definition. What is it that makes a man a man and not a woman? You seem to think this is obvious, but I truly don't see what criteria you're using. Chromosomes, primary sexual characteristics, secondary sexual characteristics, behavior, mode of presentation, mental state? I think it's a complex combination of all of those, and it depends greatly upon the manner in which we interact with a person what criteria become most important.

Actually, that's pretty good definition of gender. What you're thinking of is sex, the physical aspect, and you're right that how you feel inside doesn't define you physical sex. Your internal sense of being male or female is your gender identity.

I was responding directly to this with that statment:

"You can do a lot of lying to yourself, but all the people you know, all the women you slept with, your brothers and sisters and your mother and father will all know you are a man who is confused."

I know for a fact that this statement is incorrect. It isn't a matter of debate or discussion, it is just demonstrably wrong on its face.

Semantics matter, especially in a semantic discussion. What part of her transition is she going through in front of the students she'll see for a day as an elementary school substitute?

Gilda

No, bathrooms do become a sticky issue precisely because of the perception issues involved. At schools it's less of an issue. Every school I've ever worked at or visited as a supervisor has had single occupancy restrooms, sometimes unisex, and sometimes gendered. With such a restroom, it makes little difference, as you don't have two people sharing at any time anyway.

Gilda

Ok - I suppose I could have been clearer. I wasn't intending to describe motives (though in retrospect it certainly could have been read that way), I was describing effects. In that light, I stand by my assessment of your body modification specialist as a completely unrealistic comparison. However, it is worth saying that even with this point I am discussing on your terms, not mine. My personal belief is that societal norm is a completely subjective term that has limited benefit - particularly when weighed against concerns of sexual or sexual identity discrimination (please read on before reacting to that).

I suspect you know that superiority has nothing to do with the issue. Legality is much more applicable. In that spirit, I'll direct you to some snippets I found on Work Place Fairness. You and I both know that parents want all sorts of things, to the point of attempting to impose their will on curricular and legal matters. They don't always get their way, and rightly so. I believe I've seen post disparagingly towards this idea of parental sovereignty in the classroom in the past (please see this thread for a quick example)

(emphasis mine)

The inclusion of New Jersey is relevant, as that is where this particular case is coming up.

I wonder if you'll satisfy my curiosity on something Ustwo. Are you playing the part of the gadfly or devil's advocate here? I just have to ask because I've seen you switch tacks several times in this thread, and each position is accompanied by examples that are seemingly chosen for their shock value. I'd still happily discuss with you, but I'm genuinely curious as to where you are coming from...

Whats the difference? :D

My position doesn't really matter here as I am sympathetic to both sides. I can empathize with someone who has something so fundamentally wrong with them that they find the only relief in radical surgery. I can also empathize with a mother who would rather someone with such fundamental issues not be teaching her children.

What does wrankle me a bit is the seeming hypocrisy some exhibit in this and even the 'horse fucking' thread.

I accept THESE sexual oddities and you should to or you are a bigot, but THOSE other ones are wrong.

I level this as a general charge as I don't see a need to pick people out.

My point is if you have a limit as to what is acceptable, you (and I'm using the imperial you, not you specifically) should have a bit more empathy for those who perhaps have different limits.

Well, I hope Im not leadin the conversation of course, and Im not a moderator on this site and I dont expect I ever will be, but I think many people will find it hard to understand how the stated ethos of this site is compatible with the describtion of gender change as an "oddity", or the clearly intended comparison between transexuals and people fucking horses.

I just dont understand really people's need to judge all the time... if someone feels they are a woman in a man's body, or vica verca, why feel the need to describe this as mental illness... we have scientific technique's capable of making such a person feel happier in their skin - for what reason is there to condemn them? Who else does it hurt?

I dont think I should be ashamed for a child of mine to learn that some women want to be men, or men want to be women... I dont see it at all as a corruption, and the parents who complain stike me as ridiculous. If they have a sensible moral point, I havent heard it. If they want to tell me that their bible says it is forbidden, I can only say that I will not listen to a Christian quote Leviticus at me while they eat shellfish and celebrate their conception of God with a roasted ham.

That sums up my thoughts on this rather well.

and then

:hmm:

No one is comparing transexuals and people fucking horses. What was being compared was the hypocrisy, in both this thread and that one. That was clearly stated.

Are you implying that those of us who find sex changes to be "odd" be modified from saying such in this discussion? I think that would be more against the stated ethos of this site.

No one is condemning them. Just implying a bit of confusion and oddness.

Being sensible has never been the backbone for people's morals. That goes for people on both sides of this issue and many others.

[Threadjack] I doubt that you would have admitted bathrooms are a "sticky issue" in a discussion about gays in the military, since the lack of privacy (and bathrooms) in the field is precisely why it's a problem.

[/Threadjack]

So if I feel inside that I'm a sex god, will that be my identity?

Please hurry with your answer, because I may want to skip my house payment and move to Hollywood. :p

Edit: Okay, some of the humor-impaired aren't going to like that, so I'll add more.

If the individual pictured says he a leopard, is he a leopard, or a man who wants to look like a leopard? What if he feels inside that he's a leopard?


http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y25..._leppard1x.jpg

My point was that someone who is disfigured shouldn't be discriminated against. NOT because the schools would get sued but rather because it shouldn't matter what you look like.

The same goes for punk rock haircuts. We need more punk rock teachers.

Let's face it. If he wants to teach kids -why shouldn't he teach kids? Because he looks different? Go back to what I said about a disfigured person.

i thought we were talking about who should teach our kids, not just teach?
i don't care who they let teach, but i doubt i'd enroll my kids at leopard man's school.

What if leopard man wasn't leopard man but rather someone deformed by an accident. Like Anakin here:

http://www.dpadz.com/imgs/revenge-of...kin-burned.jpg (Yes, I know it's a movie. Pretend he's a real man burned in a real lightsaber fight)

He would still be freaky looking -like leopardman; but should he be allowed to teach?

...And before you say something like "the schools will be sued if we don't let this handicapped-burned guy teach".I'm talking about "in principle" meaning that is it right?

I suppose that at some point we should allow the schools to teach that people are not all cookie cutter versions of one another.

You're wrong.

Also, I'm not sure if I've shared this here before, but I'm openly lesbian, and I've never heard a single objection from another woman to my using the same restroom as the straight girls.

Gilda

That's not what I asked, and you know it.

I'm keeping on topic. You are not. (and you know it)

Two problems with this argument. First, leopard isn't on the continuum of human sexuality. Female is. An MTF is already female in her mind; that part of her is already at the female end of the spectrum. Sexual reassignment moves the body and social role along from one end of an already exisiting continuum to the other. The differences between male and female are smaller than the similarities, and most of those can be altered to the preferred form with differing degrees of success.

Second, I don't accept the premise that transsexuals are mutilated or disfigured that is driving the analogy here. It's an irrelevant sidetrack, as the surgery in question did not create a disfigurement and isn't visible. Many younger MTF's will undergo facial feminizaion surgery, which is visible, but which makes them more attractive and feminine in the process. They no longer look like males, but that's precisely the point, and not male =/= mutilated or disfigured.

SRS surgery gives the genitals a different, more pleasing appearance and function for the person having the surgery and, in the case of younger transsexuals, for their partners. The appearance and function of the new genitals ranges from similar to to indistiguishible from those of a biological woman.

Gilda

Answered in kind: No, you are.



Yes, you've made a big deal out of it almost constantly. If your goal was to ensure that no one cares, you accomplished it.

Your words may be accurate in the overall meaning, or they may be only technically accurate (in other words, you may not have HEARD them).

I HAVE heard complaints of that nature, from males in the Navy when I was a division officer, and from the girls in my high school, where their gym teacher was the stereotypical gay woman.

I started to provide my qualifications for not being anti-gay, but thought better of it. All it would have done would be to open up an avenue of attack from others.

I'll just say that because I'm a sensitive, 21st century kind of guy, I can empathize with those who AREN't comfortable being deprived of their privacy.

Leopard or man?

that's true.

my main concern here is the possibility that a teacher's appearance would be distracting in a learning environment, that's all. of course, upon meeting the person, more aspects would be considered as is typical when one speaks to potential teachers.

as for the hypotheticals...maybe the person is a great teacher, or maybe the person has some issues, i don't know unless i've met them. but to a certain degree, i can gauge from pictures if someone looks so unusual that *i* would have trouble concentrating on what they are saying. i guess leopard man just seems a bit much at first glance. not that i'm ruling him out, but he better know a lot about geopolitics. i'd have more sympathy for deformed star wars guy, since he might have something (more) to say about life. but i'm just guessing here, i can't say for sure what these people would be like.

Nah, you're wrong. Of the two of us, I'm pretty sure that I'm the only one qualified to decide what my arguments are or would be in a hypothetical debate we aren't currently having.

Really? Almost constantly? Let me check. One mention here. Three or four other threads out of the forty on my first page, all of them relationship threads. I mention it where it's relevant to the discussion.

They're accurate in the only meaning they have, in that I've never heard a complaint from another woman about sharing a bathroom with me. It has, therefore, never been an issue I've had to deal with.

Our experiences differ.

By golly, so am I. Except for the guy part. I think we can agree completely on this statement.

Gilda

Gilda,

You've answered so many posts with statements like "Nope" or "You're wrong" that it's become a little pointless to discuss this issue with you any further. However, I will say that I understand your viewpoint completely. And I don't think you're wrong. I just disagree with you. Completely. That doesn't make anyone wrong. We are not discussing facts here. You must know that?

We seem to look at this issue from such fundamentally different points of view, that one side does not really take the other side very seriously. This seems obvious to me.

Sort of like politics, no?

I hereby agree to disagree with you completely on this subject. But I'll bet we agree on something else down the road a bit.

I told you you were factually wrong when you posted a statement that was factually wrong. It remains so. It's so obviously factually wrong that I hardly see why it's necessary to point this out.

I told Marv he was wrong when he posted what my opinon of a different issue was. As that is not my opinion, stated or otherwise, that statement was also wrong.

"Nope" is a variant of "no." It expresses disagreement.

There are facts involved here, and there are opinions and judgements also.

As it does to me, though I doubt we'd agree as to who that is.

Look at my last response to you. It was nothing but respectful. I responded and defined my terms, and asked for you to do the same, and you compared SRS to having a thumb transplanted to your forehead. You have so far not explained what it is that makes you classify this person as a man and not a woman, responding with statements such as "It is what it is", which are essentially meaningless.

Politics often involve both facts and opinions. Calling someone who has made a factually erroneous statement is fair debate.

Could be.

Gilda