I feel for Bruce Jenner.

[Frances]

I didn't say a person was abnormal I said humans can possess abnormalities. A chemical imbalance. A missing limb.

 

And I totally get that to those of you who feel homosexuality is WHO a person is it seems shocking to say there is something wrong with it....but what if it is just like any other thing that goes wrong in the human mind or body....what if those feelings of being attracted to the same sex or wanting to become another gender than what you were born...what if those feelings are abnormal?

 

I know this conversation will go nowhere on this thread. People who are posting have their minds made up. But hundreds more are reading and lurking and I hope if someone has a spouse or a child or themselves are struggling with these feelings they can know that there are people out here who have deep compassion for that struggling while believing it is something to resist not give in to.

 

The loudest voices insist it all just be accepted and embraced....but there are people out there staying true to their beliefs even when their feelings don't match up,

Are you one of these people? Are you deeply and exclusively attracted to women? If not, then why should anyone care that you don't think homosexuals should act on their feelings? Unless you personally experience every single day what you are asking gays to do, your opinion or "support" mean nothing.

 

In this and previous threads, you've shown an astonishing lack of empathy and understanding about what homosexuals in the US deal with everyday and what they would be giving up to follow your "morals". You've equated a young homosexual person never being able to ever have a life partner or any sexual contact with your mom's temporary period of abstinence after being married and having children and grandchildren. You've asked how a young gay person with no experience in relationships could possibly be made to feel bad about who they are.

 

From your signature, it appears that you're husband was previously married. You do realize that some of the same people opposed to homosexuality and gay marriage believe that you are committing adultery everyday? Would you like to hear from others that you should have done the "moral" thing and resisted the urge to marry your husband? How you would feel if presidential candidates were proclaiming that divorced individuals should not be allowed to remarry. And those are just the polite messages homosexuals hear on a daily basis.

[Murphy101]

Not all transgendered people have surgery. Breast implants or breast removal are far more common than SRS or "lower" surgery. This is partly due to cost and financial considerations and partly due to risks (such as possible loss of sexual climax) inherent in such a surgery.

But you didn't answer the question.

 

The point is that transgendered seem to be claiming they feel/think they are born _*insert comfy word for born not how they normally/most naturally should have been*____ bc their body does not match who they feel/think they actually are.

 

I'm willing to believe that their view and struggle is genuine.

 

And bc I'm willing to believe that, I have a hard time understanding why the mere suggestion that doing research to find out how we could be preventing people being born with such an awful opposing view of their own selves is viewed as hating them. That seems rather convoluted to me. It would seem to me that no one wants to be born transgendered. That's what transgendered IS - it is someone who doesn't agree with the body that they were born with and wants to have, or at least live as though they have, a different sex/gender. They want their body to reflect the gender/sex they believe themselves to actually be. They might not do the surgery for many reasons but that doesn't change the fact that they do not want the sex/gender they have. They do not want this disparity between themselves and their body. They seem to think nature screwed up for lack of a better term, and didn't match the makeup of their exterior sex/gender with their interior makeup.

[LucyStoner]

But you didn't answer the question.

 

The point is that transgendered seem to be claiming they feel/think they are born _*insert comfy word for born not how they normally/most naturally should have been*____ bc their body does not match who they feel/think they actually are.

 

I'm willing to believe that their view and struggle is genuine.

 

And bc I'm willing to believe that, I have a hard time understanding why the mere suggestion that doing research to find out how we could be preventing people being born with such an awful opposing view of their own selves is viewed as hating them. That seems rather convoluted to me. It would seem to me that no one wants to be born transgendered. That's what transgendered IS - it is someone who doesn't agree with the body that they were born with and wants to have, or at least live as though they have, a different sex/gender. They want their body to reflect the gender/sex they believe themselves to actually be. They might not do the surgery for many reasons but that doesn't change the fact that they do not want the sex/gender they have. They do not want this disparity between themselves and their body. They seem to think nature screwed up for lack of a better term, and didn't match the makeup of their exterior sex/gender with their interior makeup.

I responded to the idea that all transgendered people seek to fix a deformity with surgery. Bluntly, in the situations I am privy too, most trans people I know have not had SRS. Some have not even opted to take hormones. That doesn't mean they aren't trans. My goal was to add information to correct a common misperception anout trans people, not answer anyone's question.

 

Since you ask though, here's my take:

 

It's important to remember that reality is at least partially a degree of perception. Perhaps the people who told my brother that he should leave the church or that he was a lost soul think that they were not being hateful. Perhaps his FIL refusing to come to their wedding wasn't meant as an act of hate. Perhaps the parents at my nieces' school who gossip about him (he has a visible volunteer job) feel they are just expressing concern for their kids. That however is only part of the equation. Does it feel hateful? Does it feel unaccepting? Does it feel intolerant? You bet. You bet. You bet.

 

If I had a problem, say as part of my religion, with large families and took every opportunity to share that with you, I might feel that I am just sharing my opinion and that I don't hate you. You might feel very differently. Your perception of that is just as important is figuring out if what/how I am saying is hateful as my self serving belief that I am not hateful. What if I said hate the excess reproduction, not the excess reproducers? (Let me spell out this is just a theoretical example to illustrate my point, I have no actual objection to large families).

 

My brother gets to say what he experienced and continues to experience is marked with hate. Because that is truthfully and honestly how it felt and feels from his perspective.

 

Regarding preventing people from being born trans. That so out of where we are at scientifically, I haven't really considered it.

[Scarlett]

Are you one of these people? Are you deeply and exclusively attracted to women? If not, then why should anyone care that you don't think homosexuals should act on their feelings? Unless you personally experience every single day what you are asking gays to do, your opinion or "support" mean nothing.

 

In this and previous threads, you've shown an astonishing lack of empathy and understanding about what homosexuals in the US deal with everyday and what they would be giving up to follow your "morals". You've equated a young homosexual person never being able to ever have a life partner or any sexual contact with your mom's temporary period of abstinence after being married and having children and grandchildren. You've asked how a young gay person with no experience in relationships could possibly be made to feel bad about who they are.

 

From your signature, it appears that you're husband was previously married. You do realize that some of the same people opposed to homosexuality and gay marriage believe that you are committing adultery everyday? Would you like to hear from others that you should have done the "moral" thing and resisted the urge to marry your husband? How you would feel if presidential candidates were proclaiming that divorced individuals should not be allowed to remarry. And those are just the polite messages homosexuals hear on a daily basis.

I don't think anyone does care what I think. That is why I keep being told to shut up in this thread. that seems to be the only acceptable outcome in a thread like this. Because if I dare to try and explain my beliefs on it I am shut down with being told I am wrong/hateful/misinformed/not accepting science etc.

 

Again I never said that feelings are a choice or that it must be easy to feel one way and live another. Every time I say actions are a choice ten people come back and say I is not a choice it is the core of who they are. Perhaps ( although I doubt the core of us is sexuality and romance) but what I said is that actions are choices.

 

We all struggle. You have no idea of what I struggle with. And yes I am aware that some people feel I am committing adultery by being in a second marriage. Bothers me not one bit because I am comfortable that I am living according to what I think is right. If I had felt it was wrong to remarry but did it anyway I would feel very bad about myself.

 

And that is what it all comes back to with this situation...with trans and homosexuality. I have the right to think it is wrong. And other people have the right to believe it is not wrong.

[Soror]

And yet at the time, many of the exact same arguments that are now being used to justify attempts to prohibit marriage equality were used to argue against interracial marriage, too.

 

There's a wonderful video of a minister speaking to a city council or similar governmental body. He speaks for a few moments about how same-sex marriage is a sin, quotes some Bible passages, etc., then seems to get confused or lose his place. He apologizes and explains that he must have misplaced his notes and is accidentally using arguments from 60 years ago about interracial marriage. He ends by explaining that the arguments being made against same-sex marriage today are no more valid than those old arguments were then. 

 

And he sits down.

Interesting video but it seemed plain to me that it was planned that way, smart tactic imo.

[Joanne]

 

And that is what it all comes back to with this situation...with trans and homosexuality. I have the right to think it is wrong.

 

 

(The collective) your opinions on the topics of sexual minorities represent hate, hurt, and create misery. (The collective) you never admit that - to the people you are talking about - it is experienced as hate. Even when members here and their families tell you, (the collective) you never address that sexual minorities experience "hate the sin, lover the sinner" in all its forms is experienced as hate.

 

 

[Bluegoat]

I really find a lot of the thinking around this very imprecise and often contradictory.  I do think there is a tendency to dismiss people who have hesitations or even want to discuss those things as being either misinformed or insensitive. 

 

It isn't for example the case that just because an explanation does not apply to all people, it cannot apply to some.  Especially when we are talking about complex hormonal, brain, and behavioral systems some of which have strong cultural components.  Even with pretty straighforward brain questions, we can often see that the same evident effects can come from different mechanisms, or sometimes the same mechinisms that come from different causes.  The fact that one person who is transexual (or gay or whatever) did not have a particular origin for that not mean that is never the case.

 

The assumptions being thrown around about people's experience of self-identity seem to me to be about as simplistic as the most naive conservative religious positions. 

 

I am not sure why people think that transexuals are mostly about gender identification.  Many transexuals argue quite strongly that they identify on a very physical level with the body, the sexual organs of the opposite sex, to the point of wanting to take what can be quite drastic steps to accomplish that.  Calling that gender identity seems to me to be a way of avoiding some of the more complicated and difficult questions - most fundamentally maybe in what sense we are our body and what it means if we feel alienated from the body we have in some way.  If we follow the view that says that gender is constructed, then the particularities of it are going to be in many ways arbitrary - clearly a transexual doesn't have some deep biological connection to pink or blue any more than any other person does.  THe whole idea that such people exist seems to imply that there is in fact something more objective about sex.

 

I also really wish people would be more careful about tossing around assumptions about people "always" being a particular way, or about that having a particular meaning.  Many people seem to quite mistakenly assume that something biological must be present before birth, or that there is a kind of bianary choice between "choosing" to be something and it being biological.  Even at a simple level - none of us remember being infants, and it can be difficult to tell at the best of times if particular brain developments occur in the womb or infancy (and in a way it is an arbitrary distinction anyway).  And of course always being a particular way, even if it is true in the most simple sense, in itself doesn't supply much meaning.

 

Even in the early childhood years, identity is still being formed, and our perceptions of it are confused, and it is very difficult to separate biological, social, and cultural narratives - I frankly doubt that it is possible for anyone to do so in any complete way.  How we interpret them at the time, and looking back later, may be influenced by all kinds of things other than what is strictly biological. To look back and say "this experience I had can be interpreted in light of the idea that my gender identification was different than my sex"  is also an interpretive paradigm for the experience, and it is difficult to show that it is intrinsic to it. 

 

I also think that it is a bad idea to get away from speaking about the biological aspect of these things in a way we would talk about other, similar things.  "Abnormal" is not bad - it is what we would typically call an unusual developmental error, especially one that has significant and potentially negative consequences.  Muy sister was born without her esophogus attached to her stomach.  That is abnormal, we can pinpoint it developmentally quite precisly. but that does not have some intrinsic moral judgement.  I think it is common for people even when there is no cultural baggage to feel that these things can single them out or be unfair, or some sort of cosmic finger pointing.  But I think that is part of a personal process of accepting these things.  To try and circumvent that I think could actually have quite negative consequences - people need to come to terms with all that it will mean, and that may in some cases even include cultural or social consequences. 

[Pam in CT]

I wish the best for Bruce Jenner and his family.

 

 

I'm struggling in this thread with how the words "abnormal" and "choice" are being used.  Perhaps there's a semantics difference in how we're using the terms?

 

 

 

(not picking on you Martha, BTW -- just jumping off from your quote because you provided one possible definition)

Right. Because "abnormal" means nothing more than outside the norm. There's nothing slanderous about it.

Knowing someone has an abnormality in no way at all means they are viewed as lesser people or aren't loved.

 

My son is left-handed.  The incidence for lefthandedness is somewhere around 8-10%, so it's definitely outside the statistical norm.  Abnormal, according to Martha's definition.  The global incidence of blue eyes is also in the same range.

 

Unlike blue eyes, though, there historically have been fairly strong societal norms associating lefthandedness as something "bad."  Had my son lived two hundred years ago, he might well have been beaten to drive the left-handedness out; even fifty years ago, his schoolteachers would likely have attempted to re-direct him to use his right hand.  

 

Appropos of this thread, the social norms associating lefthandedness as "bad" were rooted in, and justified by, deeply held religious beliefs, which drew on Biblical language associating the left hand with demons, and imagery of the right hand of God as preferred.  So left-handedness, then, was not just "abnormal" in the morally neutral sense of "statistically rare" (like blue eyes); but also "unaligned to social norms which are in turn understood in religious terms -- with associated moral disapprobation."

 

As a society, we've evolved on the subject of lefthandedness, even though those same Biblical passages are still there.  Why?

 

1. Perhaps the shift towards accepting lefthandedness within socially acceptable norms (in a similarly non-judgmental way as similarly-rare blue eyes) was due to scientific data demonstrating clear heritability factors, which convinced us that lefthandedness was not a "choice"? 
2. Or did lefthandedness become socially "normal" simply because the majority righthanded population realized that the existence of lefties going about their lefthand actions didn't affect the ability of righthanded people to go on with theirs?

 

I'm curious because to me, the intense focus here and on many many other threads on whether or not LBGT orientation is a "choice" is... baffling.  To me, reason 2 is sufficient -- for lefties then and the LBGT population now.  

 

 

 

But if the word "choice" is going to have a central place in the discussion, then it seems to me that we have to be honest in owning how the choice to express social, faith-based and family disapprobation, are as damaging to LBGT persons, and particularly children, as beating lefties were back in the day.  

 

It is a choice to speak out from pulpits, to cast out LGBT family members, to initiate and vote on legislation, to refuse to attend the life cycle events of friends and family, to vent moral disapproval in public media like WTM.  We unequivocally have the *right* to do these things but they nonetheless *do* cause harm.  If hearing about the harm feels uncomfortable... there's a choice.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[elegantlion]

 

 

 

You know, I can't think of one movie I watched with Russell Brand, but he is gifted in the skill of rhetoric. I've read some of his other writings about his personal life. 

 

I really liked what he said about leaving "artifacts of judgments." We're a homeschooling board, a classical one at its roots. We read documents and primary sources from the beginning, literature from ancient times, the Holy Books, philosophy, history. It's easy to see bias and "artifacts of judgment" in hindsight. Wouldn't it be nice to arrive at a different conclusion before hindsight is needed? 

 

The other day I was helping with a community event and had a wonderful chat with a person who runs a ministry for the homeless. I pulled out the card when I got home and noticed it used the phrase "least of these" on it (I'm leaving the rest out to be more private). It left sort of a bitter taste, as it clearly conveys they believe homeless people are "lesser." Last time I checked they are not lesser people, they are only less fortunate. 

 

We must be cautious to clearly articulate our beliefs and be cautious how our own bias creeps into our language. I do not speak to anyone in particular as we all have our areas of bias. If you follow God, he calls us to love one another. We still read words from Christ that are over 2000 years old. If I am to be more Christ, I want to ensure my words can be read in 2000 years and be looked on not as articles of judgment but as words of love and comfort for my fellow human. 

[Joanne]

 

 

It isn't for example the case that just because an explanation does not apply to all people, it cannot apply to some.  Especially when we are talking about complex hormonal, brain, and behavioral systems some of which have strong cultural components.  Even with pretty straighforward brain questions, we can often see that the same evident effects can come from different mechanisms, or sometimes the same mechinisms that come from different causes.  The fact that one person who is transexual (or gay or whatever) did not have a particular origin for that not mean that is never the case.

 

 

 

Where I agree with you is that research into trans issues is lacking, underfunded, and nowhere near able to speak to the complex issue.

[Leav97]

I wish the best for Bruce Jenner and his family.

 

 

I'm struggling in this thread with how the words "abnormal" and "choice" are being used.  Perhaps there's a semantics difference in how we're using the terms?

 

 

 

(not picking on you Martha, BTW -- just jumping off from your quote because you provided one possible definition)

 

My son is left-handed.  The incidence for lefthandedness is somewhere around 8-10%, so it's definitely outside the statistical norm.  Abnormal, according to Martha's definition.  The global incidence of blue eyes is also in the same range.

 

Unlike blue eyes, though, there historically have been fairly strong societal norms associating lefthandedness as something "bad."  Had my son lived two hundred years ago, he might well have been beaten to drive the left-handedness out; even fifty years ago, his schoolteachers would likely have attempted to re-direct him to use his right hand.  

 

Appropos of this thread, the social norms associating lefthandedness as "bad" were rooted in, and justified by, deeply held religious beliefs, which drew on Biblical language associating the left hand with demons, and imagery of the right hand of God as preferred.  So left-handedness, then, was not just "abnormal" in the morally neutral sense of "statistically rare" (like blue eyes); but also "unaligned to social norms which are in turn understood in religious terms -- with associated moral disapprobation."

 

As a society, we've evolved on the subject of lefthandedness, even though those same Biblical passages are still there.  Why?

 

1. Perhaps the shift towards accepting lefthandedness within socially acceptable norms (in a similarly non-judgmental way as similarly-rare blue eyes) was due to scientific data demonstrating clear heritability factors, which convinced us that lefthandedness was not a "choice"? 
2. Or did lefthandedness become socially "normal" simply because the majority righthanded population realized that the existence of lefties going about their lefthand actions didn't affect the ability of righthanded people to go on with theirs?

 

I'm curious because to me, the intense focus here and on many many other threads on whether or not LBGT orientation is a "choice" is... baffling.  To me, reason 2 is sufficient -- for lefties then and the LBGT population now.  

 

 

 

But if the word "choice" is going to have a central place in the discussion, then it seems to me that we have to be honest in owning how the choice to express social, faith-based and family disapprobation, are as damaging to LBGT persons, and particularly children, as beating lefties were back in the day.  

 

It is a choice to speak out from pulpits, to cast out LGBT family members, to initiate and vote on legislation, to refuse to attend the life cycle events of friends and family, to vent moral disapproval in public media like WTM.  We unequivocally have the *right* to do these things but they nonetheless *do* cause harm.  If hearing about the harm feels uncomfortable... there's a choice.

 

 

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CBi-lQQVIAAjtAR.jpg:large

[skimomma]

You cannot accept people while being disapproving of them.

 

I usually stay out of these threads.  I am 100% for equal rights for all people and do not consider LGBT people to be "abnormal" or "sinners" or anything else but people.  I find the biblical arguments to justify legislature against equal rights to be laughable, actually.  We will one day shake our heads that we even had these discussions.

 

But.

 

I disagree with the above.  At least not the way I understand the statement anyway.  I don't really know what it means to "disapprove" of someone.  How can one disapprove of a person?  I understood it to mean disapproving of someone's actions/feelings/identification.  If that is not what this statement means, you can disregard my opinion on it.  I am close to, love, accept, advocate for, respect, and ACCEPT many people who have done something (if not many things) I "disapprove" of.

 

I am not a Christian but grew up in a deeply religious family and church community.  Growing up, I was taught in church that Jesus calls us to love and accept people.  We are to leave the judgment and punishment up to God.  This means accepting people even if you disagree with things they do.  I cannot quote bible verses to back this up.  But it seems like common sense.  Be nice.  Love people.  Help people.  Don't be jerks.  These are the messages I would take away if I were someone who believed LGBT were sinners.  

 

Jenner is not hurting anyone.  I would argue that he is helping people by using his status to shed light on an issue many do not understand.  Spewing out "disapproval" when not asked for your opinion does hurt people.  

[goldberry]

The transgendered person that I work with and have talked with for a long time, indeed uses the expression that "something was wrong".  She felt from the time she was a child that she was female, and her physical body as a male did not match.  Perhaps not all transgendered persons feel that way, but I know she 100% would have preferred that her body just matched her nature from the beginning.  I don't know why any transgendered person would not prefer that and have to go through the pain and trauma of trying to make their body match.  

 

I don't see anything wrong at all in research into why that happens or how to keep it from happening.  It would save a tremendous amount of pain.

[Carol in Cal.]

 

 

The other day I was helping with a community event and had a wonderful chat with a person who runs a ministry for the homeless. I pulled out the card when I got home and noticed it used the phrase "least of these" on it (I'm leaving the rest out to be more private). It left sort of a bitter taste, as it clearly conveys they believe homeless people are "lesser." Last time I checked they are not lesser people, they are only less fortunate. 

 

 

 

It might be that this quote is so uncommon now that it is not generally known and should not be used anymore, but it actually means exactly the opposite of what you thought.

 

It is a quote from the KJV Bible, from a story (parable) that Jesus told about the last days.  In it He says that to the extent (inasmuch as) you physically or through visitation help 'the least of these, My brethren', you do it 'to Me' i.e. to Jesus Himself.  Hence He is elevating those who appear to be low  because they are sick or emprisoned or without the basics of life by saying that when you help them you are literally helping Jesus, God Himself.  

 

This story used to be read in liturgical churches every single year.  It fuels a great deal of human care work, and also sets the attitude that should permeate that--that it's a horizontal rather than a vertical gift.  Here is the whole thing:

 

Matthew 25:

31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:

32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:

33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.

34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:

36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.

37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?

38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?

39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?

40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:

43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.

44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?

45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.

46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

[kahlanne]

First of all let me say that I don't believe Bruce was putting on an act for attention at all. I also think he has struggled most of his life with this issue but even if had only been years, I would still feel for him. I think it took courage to do what he did. Do I agree with him? No because I have a different belief in what the Bible says than he does. This happens a bunch with Christianity even to the point of how you "become" a Christian. I cannot speak for all Christians out there and they don't speak for me. I will continue to believe and interpret the Bible the ways I do until God convicts me or shows me otherwise.

 

I wonder how many LGBT people or family are Christian? Before you get angry, I actually believe the can be. For the portion that are not and have never professed to be Christian, why should I hold them to Christian values/morals? They are worldly not Christians and should be expected to see things differently than Christians. This isn't an insult but a statement of fact. I, as a Christian, have never understood being more concerned about their bedroom than their soul. Some would say it is the same but I can't help but disagree. I am only speaking of the ones that profess to not be Christian.

 

 

As for the ones that are professing Christians, I believe it is between them and God. I have issues in my life that God convicts me of and issues people convict me of. Many times the ones that people are convicting me of  God hasn't put it in my heart that it is a sin. He may never convict me that it is a sin or He may be working on other issues in my life at the time. There are so many sins out there that I don't believe He will convict us of everything we do all at once or we could become paralyzed with guilt. My kids do lots of things wrong daily even though they are great kids. From the youngest age forward I work with them on learning what is right and wrong and expected of them. I can't expect to bombard a 5 yr old with the same expectations as a 15 yr old. Doesn't mean that it is wrong to expect the 15 yr old to never text and drive but it isn't relevant to the 5 yr old. He isn't ready for that rule yet. We are children of God and he will teach and guide us as we grow. Then there is the issue that God may never convict me of a sin. Maybe it never became relevant in my life or maybe I was mistaken and it isn't a sin. Either way until God does the convicting, I don't believe a heart will change. For this reason, I try to refrain from bombarding people with my thoughts on their sin unless it is a discussion. I feel that a discussion is the time and place to discuss each viewpoint. You never know when something you say will change minds or vice versa. I don't believe stating ones beliefs on a topic during a discussion constitutes hate. I think we should always try to be tactful and respectful but disagreeing on an issue doesn't mean we hate each other or would abide hateful acts on such person or group of persons.  Many times I have participated in discussions about the evil of alcohol. In the Christian religion there are many different viewpoints on the topic, all of which seem to believe in excess, alcoholism, is a sin. Its the act of moderation that is usually the topic of debate. During discussions I understand that my Baptists friends stating, sometimes passionately with multiple scriptures, are not hating me. They are hating what they perceive as sin not the sinner. I may not agree with them and we may strongly debate the issue but I don't feel like they are evil in doing so. However if my friend comes to my home and out of the blue starts to lambast me with my perceived sin to force me to change, I will perceive this as hate and more so probably dig my heels in and not "hear" a word she is saying. It will not change my heart. For me God hasn't put it in my heart that it is a sin. It is one of the areas of the Bible that isn't clear to me. Maybe my friends are correct and it is a sin and God will deal with me later or maybe they are wrong. Either way, it ultimately should be up to God to decide for me not them. For these friends I respect them enough to not bring alcohol to their functions and warn them when it is in our functions or refrain in their presence. I don't feel it is wrong but I love them and respect their views. If they come to our house and we happen to be having a glass of wine, they chose to overlook it. They don't search for our "sins" to point out every chance they get nor I theirs. If I experienced doubt on this topic, I know without a doubt that I would turn to them for answers as they have been strong in their convictions but full of love and respect for me as a person.

 

 

I am sure I am not explaining everything perfectly but I hope that you can look and see that while I may feel one way, I don't hate anyone that feels the opposite. It is quite possible to love you and I hope vice versa. Do you hate me because we disagree? Or do you hate how I feel or perceive things? If things change and the majority, religious and otherwise, feel that everyone that disagrees with LGBT are wrong, would it then be ok to persecute the non-believers? I believe all of you would say no to this. However, if some do evil things to the ones that hold fast to their disbelief, would your hatred of their disbelief mean you are condoning evil acts?  Does the fact that some believers take too drastic of an action against the ones that hold different views even if unaccepted by society as a whole mean that all believers are bad and condone their actions? I am asking that you consider the role reversal just as I should consider how it would feel in your situation.

 

 

[Χά�ων]

Interesting video but it seemed plain to me that it was planned that way, smart tactic imo.

It was planned that way to make an impact and drive home the point that using the bible to defend intolerance and hate is wrong, no matter if the topic is LGBT or segregation.

[elegantlion]

It might be that this quote is so uncommon now that it is not generally known and should not be used anymore, but it actually means exactly the opposite of what you thought.

 

It is a quote from the KJV Bible, from a story (parable) that Jesus told about the last days.  In it He says that to the extent (inasmuch as) you physically or through visitation help 'the least of these, My brethren', you do it 'to Me' i.e. to Jesus Himself.  Hence He is elevating those who appear to be low  because they are sick or emprisoned or without the basics of life by saying that when you help them you are literally helping Jesus, God Himself.  

 

This story used to be read in liturgical churches every single year.  It fuels a great deal of human care work, and also sets the attitude that should permeate that--that it's a horizontal rather than a vertical gift.  Here is the whole thing:

 

Matthew 25:

31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:

32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:

33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.

34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:

36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.

37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?

38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?

39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?

40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:

43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.

44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?

45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.

46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

 

Yes, I am familiar with the story. However, there is a mindset in our community that homeless people are truly lesser and picking out that portion to put on a business card doesn't help. 

 

It's nitpicky, I'll admit, but there are so many great verses on serving others as Christ, I would have chosen one that doesn't create an unconscious divide through misunderstanding or incorrect perception. That was part of my point about bias. I'll bet the person who made this card doesn't see how there is some bias in the choice of scripture, just as many of us don't see our own bias unless its pointed out - I have my own, I know. 

[Carol in Cal.]

Yes, I am familiar with the story. However, there is a mindset in our community that homeless people are truly lesser and picking out that portion to put on a business card doesn't help. 

 

It's nitpicky, I'll admit, but there are so many great verses on serving others as Christ, I would have chosen one that doesn't create an unconscious divide through misunderstanding or incorrect perception. That was part of my point about bias. I'll bet the person who made this card doesn't see how there is some bias in the choice of scripture, just as many of us don't see our own bias unless its pointed out - I have my own, I know. 

 

Your post reminds me of a Christian college in Colorado that was rented for a (secular) children's choral retreat a few years back.  A big sign next to the main parking lot said, "Present your bodies."  Now, anyone who knows the Bible knows what that means in context (Romans 12:1-2), but in isolation to a set of secular folks it was grossly misinterpreted, as you might imagine.  People do need to think about their communications and whether they actually communicate, at least to some extent.

[goldberry]

Your post reminds me of a Christian college in Colorado that was rented for a (secular) children's choral retreat a few years back.  A big sign next to the main parking lot said, "Present your bodies."  Now, anyone who knows the Bible knows what that means in context (Romans 12:1-2), but in isolation to a set of secular folks it was grossly misinterpreted, as you might imagine.  People do need to think about their communications and whether they actually communicate, at least to some extent.

 

 

:lol:  :lol:  :lol:

[Bluegoat]

I wish the best for Bruce Jenner and his family.

 

 

I'm struggling in this thread with how the words "abnormal" and "choice" are being used.  Perhaps there's a semantics difference in how we're using the terms?

 

 

 

(not picking on you Martha, BTW -- just jumping off from your quote because you provided one possible definition)

 

My son is left-handed.  The incidence for lefthandedness is somewhere around 8-10%, so it's definitely outside the statistical norm.  Abnormal, according to Martha's definition.  The global incidence of blue eyes is also in the same range.

 

Unlike blue eyes, though, there historically have been fairly strong societal norms associating lefthandedness as something "bad."  Had my son lived two hundred years ago, he might well have been beaten to drive the left-handedness out; even fifty years ago, his schoolteachers would likely have attempted to re-direct him to use his right hand.  

 

Appropos of this thread, the social norms associating lefthandedness as "bad" were rooted in, and justified by, deeply held religious beliefs, which drew on Biblical language associating the left hand with demons, and imagery of the right hand of God as preferred.  So left-handedness, then, was not just "abnormal" in the morally neutral sense of "statistically rare" (like blue eyes); but also "unaligned to social norms which are in turn understood in religious terms -- with associated moral disapprobation."

 

As a society, we've evolved on the subject of lefthandedness, even though those same Biblical passages are still there.  Why?

 

1. Perhaps the shift towards accepting lefthandedness within socially acceptable norms (in a similarly non-judgmental way as similarly-rare blue eyes) was due to scientific data demonstrating clear heritability factors, which convinced us that lefthandedness was not a "choice"? 
2. Or did lefthandedness become socially "normal" simply because the majority righthanded population realized that the existence of lefties going about their lefthand actions didn't affect the ability of righthanded people to go on with theirs?

 

I'm curious because to me, the intense focus here and on many many other threads on whether or not LBGT orientation is a "choice" is... baffling.  To me, reason 2 is sufficient -- for lefties then and the LBGT population now.  

 

 

 

But if the word "choice" is going to have a central place in the discussion, then it seems to me that we have to be honest in owning how the choice to express social, faith-based and family disapprobation, are as damaging to LBGT persons, and particularly children, as beating lefties were back in the day.  

 

It is a choice to speak out from pulpits, to cast out LGBT family members, to initiate and vote on legislation, to refuse to attend the life cycle events of friends and family, to vent moral disapproval in public media like WTM.  We unequivocally have the *right* to do these things but they nonetheless *do* cause harm.  If hearing about the harm feels uncomfortable... there's a choice.

 

I think you would probably find that there is a difference, speaking from a more biological perspective, between considering something more rare in the population, and considering it an abnormality.  In everyday language people are often less careful, But something like left-handedness is not a result of a developmental abnormality, any more than blue eyes are - it is biologically normal for some percentage of the population to be different in some ways, and in other things there are a lot of variation among individuals. 

 

There can be a variety of reasons these things are variable, and to some extent they may be identified as normal or abnormal based on their effects.  Sickle cell disease for example we might say is the normal outcome of a particular adaptation that we can expect in a part of the population.  What makes it negative is that it is not good for the person who has it. 

 

But in the case of transexuals, as far as scientists best guesses go, the difference is a result of a developmental error - something perhaps like hormone exposure in the womb, so that brain development does not happen in the expected way.  So, we could say I think without any moral implications that it is a developmental error, just like something like a cleft lip is a result of a particular (and not that uncommon) error in fetal development. 

 

As to whether it is negative or positive or benign - in some cases it may be fairly benign. But you know, if you look at descriptions of transexuals experiences, they can be pretty heartwrenching totally apart from any cultural expectations.  feelings of physical alienation from their own bodies, as if they would like to destroy them or parts of them, are disgused by them, or are physically trapped, are not caused by people perceiving them a particular way.  These aren't in fact alien bodies they have been trapped in - they are their own bodies.  that kind of sense of alienation and mind/body separation is not nice or healthy.

 

I think when you look at the lengths people go to, it becomes more clear.  Taking hormones on a long term basis is not necessarily a simple benign thing, any more than any long term dependance on medication is.  The physical surgeries involved can be very invasive, they involve serious risks, their effectivness is pretty limited.  Some advocate the use of drugs to delay and prvent puberty in kids who think they might be transexual - that is pretty powerful stuff with a lot of implications not only for the body but possible the mind.

 

Most of the time, we would consider a developmental error that requires that kind of intervention, possibly on an ongoing basis, a serious medical issue and an abnormality.  Individuals of course can come to terms with that kind of thing in many ways, and even turn it into something quite amazing and positive. 

 

As far as choice, i don't know that many people think how a person experiences things is usually a choice in the normal way. (Although, in the last few years i would say the nature of that discussion has changed in the gay community, with the idea of sexuality and identity as a choice and flexible getting a lot more discussion and support.)  But I think what people might say is that there are two kinds of choice that happen.  One is that there is a cultural interpretive paradigm for these kinds of experiences, and none of them are obviously true or can be "proved" by data (though some might be disproved.)  The idea that people self-identify in a particular way based on a particular set of internal experiences does not mean the paradigm which they use to think about and evaluate those experience is true or the only possibility.  It is more like a model.  For example - in many ancient cultures, including ones that were comfortable with same sex sexual activity, there was no concept of a homosexual or heterosexual self-identity.  And in some contexts same-sex activity might even have been near universal - according to our paradigm that would be charachterized in a particular way and give particular meaning, but in that context it wasn't.

 

So - there is a choice of sorts at the cultural level about the narratives we use for these things, that is not innate or inborn or self-evident in the way people sometimes insist, and it very much impacts even how we experience things.  At the level of the individual there is some choice here as well, an individual can sometimes choose not to catagorize or interpret his experience according to a particular narrative, or choose a different one than is usual.  What is, for example, someone who had a similar experience to someone who identified as a transexual rejected that because he considered that sex was an objective reality?  Or someone who thought there were three sexes?  Would that change his self-identity, or how he interpreted his own emotions?

 

The other kind of choice of course is whatever kinds of feelings we have, we can evaluate them in many ways and decide what to do about them.  It is pretty rare for people to go about habitually doing things just to be bad or a jerk, even if they don't find it appealling.  Almost all of our behaviors in the end appeal to us on some level, and in that sense are part of who we are.  Our decisions about whether we should in fact act on them don't really come from the fact they are part of us, or all things we want to do would be equally good ideas.

 

 

 

 

 

[Soror]

It was planned that way to make an impact and drive home the point that using the bible to defend intolerance and hate is wrong, no matter if the topic is LGBT or segregation.

Yes, that is how it appeared to me but the previous comments sounded like it was thought that he really came to some revelation while giving his testimony.

[swellmomma]

Your post reminds me of a Christian college in Colorado that was rented for a (secular) children's choral retreat a few years back.  A big sign next to the main parking lot said, "Present your bodies."  Now, anyone who knows the Bible knows what that means in context (Romans 12:1-2), but in isolation to a set of secular folks it was grossly misinterpreted, as you might imagine.  People do need to think about their communications and whether they actually communicate, at least to some extent.

And your post reminds me of Monty Python "bring out your dead"

 

 

 

As for the notion that LGBT would not be Christian, I have no words *smh*

 

You know I might be naive about some subjects, I may not be the best at saying what I am trying to say.  But at least I can attest to not being willfully ignorant.  Which is more than I can say about some in this thread.

 

FTR, my bisexual daughter is a Christian and she is planning on doing a missions trip next summer. The fact that she is not interested in only men does not negate her faith.  

[kahlanne]

And your post reminds me of Monty Python "bring out your dead"

 

 

 

As for the notion that LGBT would not be Christian, I have no words *smh*

 

You know I might be naive about some subjects, I may not be the best at saying what I am trying to say.  But at least I can attest to not being willfully ignorant.  Which is more than I can say about some in this thread.

 

FTR, my bisexual daughter is a Christian and she is planning on doing a missions trip next summer. The fact that she is not interested in only men does not negate her faith.  

 

You may or may not have been speaking to me but I just want to clarify if you misunderstood my words. I believe anyone can be a Christian but I don't believe everyone is. It doesn't matter the sexual preference, race, or any deeds good or bad. It is a choice each person makes on their own. I also believe they can't be forced into it. I believe God is there for anyone that wants to accept Him. My point about Christianity and LGBT is why hold the NON-Christian LGBT to Christian values and standards? These may be my standards as a Christian and there may be some overlap with "worldly" standards but I am niave if I think all "worldly" people will believe or even care to believe my Biblical morals. I don't use worldly disparagingly either. I use it portray non Christians whether they are of another religion, atheists, etc.

 

As for your daughter, it seems you have many reasons to be very proud of her. I think what she is doing for others is something to be applauded.

 

edited because I am not that great of a writer and tend to repeat myself. Should probably edit more but :)

[Catwoman]

But you didn't answer the question.

 

The point is that transgendered seem to be claiming they feel/think they are born _*insert comfy word for born not how they normally/most naturally should have been*____ bc their body does not match who they feel/think they actually are.

 

I'm willing to believe that their view and struggle is genuine.

 

And bc I'm willing to believe that, I have a hard time understanding why the mere suggestion that doing research to find out how we could be preventing people being born with such an awful opposing view of their own selves is viewed as hating them. That seems rather convoluted to me. It would seem to me that no one wants to be born transgendered. That's what transgendered IS - it is someone who doesn't agree with the body that they were born with and wants to have, or at least live as though they have, a different sex/gender. They want their body to reflect the gender/sex they believe themselves to actually be. They might not do the surgery for many reasons but that doesn't change the fact that they do not want the sex/gender they have. They do not want this disparity between themselves and their body. They seem to think nature screwed up for lack of a better term, and didn't match the makeup of their exterior sex/gender with their interior makeup.

I agree with this.

 

I can't speak for the entire population of transgendered people, but my friend has often said that he wishes he had been born "normal." I think it is awful that he has gone through his entire life in the wrong body. He thinks so, too. He wishes there was a "cure" to make him feel happy in the body he was born with, and he still looks for scientific studies to help him figure out why he is the way he is.

 

I happen to believe he is actually in the wrong body, but even if I thought it was "all in his head," I wouldn't wish that kind of conflicted existence on anyone and if there was a way to change things for him and for every other transgendered person out there, I would do whatever I could to help make that happen.

 

So obviously I am in favor of complete acceptance of transgendered people, but I also realize that being accepted still isn't going to change the way my friend feels about his body. Acceptance would certainly make things a thousand times easier, but it won't change the fact that he feels trapped in the wrong body. (Surgery isn't an option for him, for several reasons.)

 

Again, I can only speak for one friend so my opinion is far from scientific, but I know my friend would welcome more scientific research. We may be sitting her arguing over the use of terms like normal and abnormal, but my own friend would be the first one to tell you he is not normal, and that he wishes he was, so I look at this in terms of what could make my friend finally be happy and not in terms of political correctness and proper terminology, and if science could find some answers and explanations, I think that would be wonderful.

[Catwoman]

The transgendered person that I work with and have talked with for a long time, indeed uses the expression that "something was wrong". She felt from the time she was a child that she was female, and her physical body as a male did not match. Perhaps not all transgendered persons feel that way, but I know she 100% would have preferred that her body just matched her nature from the beginning. I don't know why any transgendered person would not prefer that and have to go through the pain and trauma of trying to make their body match.

 

I don't see anything wrong at all in research into why that happens or how to keep it from happening. It would save a tremendous amount of pain.

I agree completely.

[LucyStoner]

I am not sure why people think that transexuals are mostly about gender identification. Many transexuals argue quite strongly that they identify on a very physical level with the body, the sexual organs of the opposite sex, to the point of wanting to take what can be quite drastic steps to accomplish that. Calling that gender identity seems to me to be a way of avoiding some of the more complicated and difficult questions - most fundamentally maybe in what sense we are our body and what it means if we feel alienated from the body we have in some way. If we follow the view that says that gender is constructed, then the particularities of it are going to be in many ways arbitrary - clearly a transexual doesn't have some deep biological connection to pink or blue any more than any other person does. THe whole idea that such people exist seems to imply that there is in fact something more objective about sex.

 

No, calling it gender identity and gender expression is a way to acknowledge the vast diversity of experiences and more clearly define matters. Gender and sex are different things. Without seeing that distinction, you are right, this becomes a very imprecise conversation.

 

Transsexual is an older term and not one that is as widely used anymore. It's also not really interchangeable with transgender. Transsexual people (those who use that term for themselves) would likely tend to believe their body has to change and SRS is necessary for them. That said, transsexuals with that belief are not the only trans people or even most of them. A transgender person may or may not seek surgical services. It's more about gender expression and how people percieve them. Genitalia is a private matter. No one sees mine except for my husband and my doctor. It's not any different for trans people.

 

A handy dandy pocket guide to terminology:

 

http://www.glaad.org/reference/transgender

 

I agree with you that there is more to gender than cultural practices. My brother transitioning made me question and shift a lot of my previous feminist thinking on that issue.

[luuknam]

I know this conversation will go nowhere on this thread. People who are posting have their minds made up. But hundreds more are reading and lurking and I hope if someone has a spouse or a child or themselves are struggling with these feelings they can know that there are people out here who have deep compassion for that struggling while believing it is something to resist not give in to.

 

The loudest voices insist it all just be accepted and embraced....but there are people out there staying true to their beliefs even when their feelings don't match up,

 

I get that. But not everybody shares your belief that acting on feeling LGBT is wrong.

 

What's happening is similar to if a mother expresses disapproval every single time a child doesn't perfectly wipe the table. The child will quite likely grow up with a neurosis surrounding cleanliness, regardless of whether the child believes everything should be perfectly clean. The child will quite possibly turn into a person who feels bad if she doesn't clean things thoroughly enough, even if as an adult she might rationally be able to understand that it's not that important.

 

Also, I'm not real sure why LGBT issues are such a hot topic for non-LGBT people. Aren't there a million sins out there one could comment on? I understand "hate the sin, love the sinner", but when you focus on only a few sins and keep repeating those, while ignoring the other sins, that's going to feel like picking on people rather than equal opportunity "hate the sin, love the sinner" (because really, doesn't everyone sin?).

[Pam in CT]

re: differing working definitions of "abnormal""

I think you would probably find that there is a difference, speaking from a more biological perspective, between considering something more rare in the population, and considering it an abnormality.  In everyday language people are often less careful, But something like left-handedness is not a result of a developmental abnormality, any more than blue eyes are - it is biologically normal for some percentage of the population to be different in some ways, and in other things there are a lot of variation among individuals. 

 

Yes - I think this is what I'm struggling with... there are clearly some traits or behaviors that are "statistically rare" but not socially stigmatized or morally condemned (blue eyes, to pick one that is now known to be hereditary; or speakers of Danish, to pick one that presumably is entirely culturally transmitted; or artistically inclined, to pick one whose transmission may include aspects of nature and nurture both).  I don't, myself, think of these kinds of traits as "abnormal" even though they do meet Martha's definition of "outside the norm."  

 

This is where I wonder whether we're using the same terms but meaning different things?  To me the word "abnormal" does have an association of either pathology (as in, "abnormal" results on a PAP smear) or moral judgment (as in, centuries of demonization of left-handedness).

 

 

There can be a variety of reasons these things are variable, and to some extent they may be identified as normal or abnormal based on their effects.  Sickle cell disease for example we might say is the normal outcome of a particular adaptation that we can expect in a part of the population.  What makes it negative is that it is not good for the person who has it. 

 

In the case of sickle cell disease, or the abnormal PAP smear, this makes sense: the negative effect is straightforward.  

 

 

.... As to whether it is negative or positive or benign - in some cases it may be fairly benign. But you know, if you look at descriptions of transexuals experiences, they can be pretty heartwrenching totally apart from any cultural expectations.  feelings of physical alienation from their own bodies, as if they would like to destroy them or parts of them, are disgused by them, or are physically trapped, are not caused by people perceiving them a particular way.  These aren't in fact alien bodies they have been trapped in - they are their own bodies.  that kind of sense of alienation and mind/body separation is not nice or healthy.

 

I think when you look at the lengths people go to, it becomes more clear.  Taking hormones on a long term basis is not necessarily a simple benign thing, any more than any long term dependance on medication is.  The physical surgeries involved can be very invasive, they involve serious risks, their effectivness is pretty limited.  Some advocate the use of drugs to delay and prvent puberty in kids who think they might be transexual - that is pretty powerful stuff with a lot of implications not only for the body but possible the mind.

 

Clearly there is great pain.  Yet in the case of lefthandedness yesterday, and LGBT populations today, much of the negative experience for the person with the not-typical trait is being transmitted from the surrounding culture hostile to that trait...

 

Now that kids aren't beaten for being left-handed, having that trait is no longer experienced as negative... so I can't help but wonder how much of the anguish that LBGT people experience is similarly inflicted from the outside in.  Surely some of it: we know, because they themselves say so.  Perhaps most or even all of it, as turned out to be the case for left-handed people.

 

 

 

 

... As far as choice, i don't know that many people think how a person experiences things is usually a choice in the normal way. (Although, in the last few years i would say the nature of that discussion has changed in the gay community, with the idea of sexuality and identity as a choice and flexible getting a lot more discussion and support.)  But I think what people might say is that there are two kinds of choice that happen.  One is that there is a cultural interpretive paradigm for these kinds of experiences, and none of them are obviously true or can be "proved" by data (though some might be disproved.)  The idea that people self-identify in a particular way based on a particular set of internal experiences does not mean the paradigm which they use to think about and evaluate those experience is true or the only possibility.  It is more like a model.  For example - in many ancient cultures, including ones that were comfortable with same sex sexual activity, there was no concept of a homosexual or heterosexual self-identity.  And in some contexts same-sex activity might even have been near universal - according to our paradigm that would be charachterized in a particular way and give particular meaning, but in that context it wasn't.

 

So - there is a choice of sorts at the cultural level about the narratives we use for these things, that is not innate or inborn or self-evident in the way people sometimes insist, and it very much impacts even how we experience things.  At the level of the individual there is some choice here as well, an individual can sometimes choose not to catagorize or interpret his experience according to a particular narrative, or choose a different one than is usual.  What is, for example, someone who had a similar experience to someone who identified as a transexual rejected that because he considered that sex was an objective reality?  Or someone who thought there were three sexes?  Would that change his self-identity, or how he interpreted his own emotions?

 

Yeah... I dunno.  As I said upthread, the whole raging debate about whether LGBT orientation is inborn/result of prenatal or postnatal exposure to something/fluid is pretty baffling to me. While I can see it as being an interesting theoretical area for research (like any other of the 2,345,324 nature/nurture questions being researched), I don't see the relevance for public policy.  

 

But clearly it does matter to a lot of people, including on this thread.

 

 

The other kind of choice of course is whatever kinds of feelings we have, we can evaluate them in many ways and decide what to do about them.  It is pretty rare for people to go about habitually doing things just to be bad or a jerk, even if they don't find it appealling.  Almost all of our behaviors in the end appeal to us on some level, and in that sense are part of who we are.  Our decisions about whether we should in fact act on them don't really come from the fact they are part of us, or all things we want to do would be equally good ideas.

 

I totally agree with the bolded... and also that we are able to have even strongly held emotions, and still decide whether we should act on them... that is what I meant as the flip side of the word "choice..."

 

[Scarlett]

I get that. But not everybody shares your belief that acting on feeling LGBT is wrong.

 

What's happening is similar to if a mother expresses disapproval every single time a child doesn't perfectly wipe the table. The child will quite likely grow up with a neurosis surrounding cleanliness, regardless of whether the child believes everything should be perfectly clean. The child will quite possibly turn into a person who feels bad if she doesn't clean things thoroughly enough, even if as an adult she might rationally be able to understand that it's not that important.

 

Also, I'm not real sure why LGBT issues are such a hot topic for non-LGBT people. Aren't there a million sins out there one could comment on? I understand "hate the sin, love the sinner", but when you focus on only a few sins and keep repeating those, while ignoring the other sins, that's going to feel like picking on people rather than equal opportunity "hate the sin, love the sinner" (because really, doesn't everyone sin?).

Speaking for myself it isn't a hot topic....it happens to be the topic of this thread.

 

And I acknowledge not everyone thinks it is wrong.

[luuknam]

Speaking for myself it isn't a hot topic....it happens to be the topic of this thread.

 

It's apparently hot enough for you to click on the thread, and to post your disapproval (even though the thread started out as supportive).

[kahlanne]

Nm. Think it might be  misunderstood more  than I want. Better left unsaid.

[Bluegoat]

No, calling it gender identity and gender expression is a way to acknowledge the vast diversity of experiences and more clearly define matters. Gender and sex are different things. Without seeing that distinction, you are right, this becomes a very imprecise conversation.

 

Transsexual is an older term and not one that is as widely used anymore. It's also not really interchangeable with transgender. Transsexual people (those who use that term for themselves) would likely tend to believe their body has to change and SRS is necessary for them. That said, transsexuals with that belief are not the only trans people or even most of them. A transgender person may or may not seek surgical services. It's more about gender expression and how people percieve them. Genitalia is a private matter. No one sees mine except for my husband and my doctor. It's not any different for trans people.

 

A handy dandy pocket guide to terminology:

 

http://www.glaad.org/reference/transgender

 

I agree with you that there is more to gender than cultural practices. My brother transitioning made me question and shift a lot of my previous feminist thinking on that issue.

 

Well, I don't have a problem with finding ways for people to describe their experience.  But i do think "gender is fluid" often becomes a kind of loophole so people don't need to think carefully about how their views fit together, or how they think people should approach issues.

 

Now, this doesn't always have practical outcomes, but it can.  One I find worrying is the question of how to deal with kids who seem to be atypical in this way.  The idea of using drugs to supress puberty for example I think is hugely questionable, and it can sometimes be presented as helping the person become his or her "true self".  Well, what is a persons true self?  Does it have some existence apart from his or her physical self?  If it does, is that some sort of dualist perspective?  If not, how can we say that supressing a normal process of the body is helping the person become his "true self" especially in someone with an immature brain? 

 

I think to me ultimatly this is really the fundamental point - I don't really think we are other than our bodies, though I don't think we are only that.  I think our physical existence, our cultural existence, and our spiritual existence or mind are not really seperable, but interdependant.  In that context, I'm limited in how willing I am to say we can separate "being a woman" with "being female".  If Bruce jenner wants to do things that seem to him to be womanly, I really have no argument or issue, even apart from teh fact that I don't know him.  I think getting too caught up in what is normative cultural expression is silly and useless (but, I don't think that means we should do away with normative cultural expression).  My views on etiqquete is that normally I accept however a person presents themselves.  But - in a more objective discussion of principles - l am not sure it is at all accurate to say "Bruce Jenner is a woman because he feels like he is and presents himself that way".  I think that may be an untruth and inaccurate.  I think that has implications for making, say, legal changes to people's sex (as in changing a birth certificate).  

 

Anyway, I don't find that I can often have a very detailed conversation about these things, because a lot gets glossed over by people simply saying that sex is unrelated to gender identity and the latter is what is important, and I think part of the reason is many people have not stopped to think very clearly about how they think gender identity is formed, individually or culturally, if it is not connected to the body, or what the implications of their view is if they are carried to their logical conclusion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Bluegoat]

 

 

Yeah... I dunno.  As I said upthread, the whole raging debate about whether LGBT orientation is inborn/result of prenatal or postnatal exposure to something/fluid is pretty baffling to me. While I can see it as being an interesting theoretical area for research (like any other of the 2,345,324 nature/nurture questions being researched), I don't see the relevance for public policy.  

 

But clearly it does matter to a lot of people, including on this thread.

 

 

 

I don't really think it does either, for the most part.  In my mind, it doesn't really make much difference why people feel that way, it has little effect on the fact that they do, and either way, it isn't going to tell anyone what to do about it.

 

I think however it gets brought up on the one side because people think that if they can show X to be some inborn thing, they can argue that if we don't accept X we are rejecting people for who they are. This seems clearly illogical to me.

 

The other view sometimes wants to show X as a result of some unhealthy situation (pathology or social situation) and argue from that that it must be a sign of a less than healthy person, and so be discouraged.  But that argument seems to be missing a few imjportant steps as well.

[luuknam]

"Bruce Jenner is a woman because he feels like he is and presents himself that way".  I think that may be an untruth and inaccurate.  I think that has implications for making, say, legal changes to people's sex (as in changing a birth certificate). 

 

Why would it have implications for changes to a birth certificate? Aren't birth certificates just pieces of paper used for certain practical things, rather than some sort of metaphysical 'truth' about people? People got by without birth certificates for millions of years. I think it would make sense to just be pragmatic about things like birth certificates and passports. How would you feel if you looked female, had female genitalia, felt female, but when dealing with government officials had to go through the "Uh, this isn't you." "Yes it's me." "But it says 'male'." "Yeah, I'm a transsexual. Now can we please get on with business?". Every. single. time. Why should the government even be involved in what gender/sex you are? It seems pretty irrelevant to their job/purpose.

[NicksMama-Zack's Mama Too]

I get that. But not everybody shares your belief that acting on feeling LGBT is wrong.

 

What's happening is similar to if a mother expresses disapproval every single time a child doesn't perfectly wipe the table. The child will quite likely grow up with a neurosis surrounding cleanliness, regardless of whether the child believes everything should be perfectly clean. The child will quite possibly turn into a person who feels bad if she doesn't clean things thoroughly enough, even if as an adult she might rationally be able to understand that it's not that important.

 

Also, I'm not real sure why LGBT issues are such a hot topic for non-LGBT people. Aren't there a million sins out there one could comment on? I understand "hate the sin, love the sinner", but when you focus on only a few sins and keep repeating those, while ignoring the other sins, that's going to feel like picking on people rather than equal opportunity "hate the sin, love the sinner" (because really, doesn't everyone sin?).

I have theorized that it is a hot topic for some because they fear someone close to them may come out as lgbt and they would like to think that it's a choice and that with prayer and council in they will be straight.

 

Those that choose to believe that lgbt is a result of some sort of sexual molestation want to believe that they can take preventative measures to insure their child won't identify s lgbt.

 

Perhaps it scares people to think their child could be Lgbt for no known reason. No cause, no cure. That is unacceptable to some people.

 

ETA:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/linda-robertson/just-because-he-breathes-learning-to-truly-love-our-gay-son_b_3478971.html

[Jenny in Florida]

I have theorized that it is a hot topic for some because they fear someone close to them may come out as lgbt and they would like to think that it's a choice and that with prayer and council in they will be straight.

 

Those that choose to believe that lgbt is a result of some sort of sexual molestation want to believe that they can take preventative measures to insure their child won't identify s lgbt.

 

Perhaps it scares people to think their child could be Lgbt for no known reason. No cause, no cure. That is unacceptable to some people.

 

That would be consistent with some of the research that has shown the most virulently homophobic people are more likely than others to display (while denying) homosexual tendencies.

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8772014

[LucyStoner]

Well, I don't have a problem with finding ways for people to describe their experience. But i do think "gender is fluid" often becomes a kind of loophole so people don't need to think carefully about how their views fit together, or how they think people should approach issues.

 

Now, this doesn't always have practical outcomes, but it can. One I find worrying is the question of how to deal with kids who seem to be atypical in this way. The idea of using drugs to supress puberty for example I think is hugely questionable, and it can sometimes be presented as helping the person become his or her "true self". Well, what is a persons true self? Does it have some existence apart from his or her physical self? If it does, is that some sort of dualist perspective? If not, how can we say that supressing a normal process of the body is helping the person become his "true self" especially in someone with an immature brain?

 

I think to me ultimatly this is really the fundamental point - I don't really think we are other than our bodies, though I don't think we are only that. I think our physical existence, our cultural existence, and our spiritual existence or mind are not really seperable, but interdependant. In that context, I'm limited in how willing I am to say we can separate "being a woman" with "being female". If Bruce jenner wants to do things that seem to him to be womanly, I really have no argument or issue, even apart from teh fact that I don't know him. I think getting too caught up in what is normative cultural expression is silly and useless (but, I don't think that means we should do away with normative cultural expression). My views on etiqquete is that normally I accept however a person presents themselves. But - in a more objective discussion of principles - l am not sure it is at all accurate to say "Bruce Jenner is a woman because he feels like he is and presents himself that way". I think that may be an untruth and inaccurate. I think that has implications for making, say, legal changes to people's sex (as in changing a birth certificate).

 

Anyway, I don't find that I can often have a very detailed conversation about these things, because a lot gets glossed over by people simply saying that sex is unrelated to gender identity and the latter is what is important, and I think part of the reason is many people have not stopped to think very clearly about how they think gender identity is formed, individually or culturally, if it is not connected to the body, or what the implications of their view is if they are carried to their logical conclusion.

 

 

I think it is clear that I have thought deeply, clearly and in great detail about how I think gender identity is formed, individually or culturally and how it connects to the body.

 

I was the primary caregiver for my brother before and during his transition, many years before this issue came to the forefront of our national consciousness.

 

A reoccurring theme of your posts is implying that other people don't think as well as you think they should.

[Murphy101]

It's important to remember that reality is at least partially a degree of perception.

I think it is important to remember that emotions don't always reflect reality.

 

Just bc I feel a person is something does not mean that they actually are.

 

If I had a problem, say as part of my religion, with large families and took every opportunity to share that with you, I might feel that I am just sharing my opinion and that I don't hate you. You might feel very differently. Your perception of that is just as important is figuring out if what/how I am saying is hateful as my self serving belief that I am not hateful. What if I said hate the excess reproduction, not the excess reproducers? (Let me spell out this is just a theoretical example to illustrate my point, I have no actual objection to large families).

LOL You do know I hear this stuff every single day? On this very board not too long ago I had folks with attitude about a pregnancy announcement. My blog announcement got some really unpleasant comments. I can't take my family anywhere without heads turning and comments and you can bet not all of them are nice or accepting.

 

I have the choice to decide how I'm going to feel about those interactions. Personally I tend to try to choose to set aside my cynical nature and give the benefit of the doubt to them. I refuse to let strangers or even people I know determine how I feel. Sure sometimes I come home and vent to dh or whoever, but in the end, I refuse to give them that much control over me.

 

My brother gets to say what he experienced and continues to experience is marked with hate. Because that is truthfully and honestly how it felt and feels from his perspective.

Yes, he does get to make that choice. I'm not sure if there's a healthy or beneficial reason to do so, but he does get to make that choice.

 

Regarding preventing people from being born trans. That so out of where we are at scientifically, I haven't really considered it.

I find that astonishing. How can we ever even hope to get there if we don't start considering it?

[Murphy101]

Why would it have implications for changes to a birth certificate? Aren't birth certificates just pieces of paper used for certain practical things, rather than some sort of metaphysical 'truth' about people? People got by without birth certificates for millions of years. I think it would make sense to just be pragmatic about things like birth certificates and passports. How would you feel if you looked female, had female genitalia, felt female, but when dealing with government officials had to go through the "Uh, this isn't you." "Yes it's me." "But it says 'male'." "Yeah, I'm a transsexual. Now can we please get on with business?". Every. single. time. Why should the government even be involved in what gender/sex you are? It seems pretty irrelevant to their job/purpose.

I don't *think* a birth certificate would have to be changed anyways. What sex you are is not going to change with the surgery. Your DNA will stay you are male or female. Just like getting an O-neg blood transfusion doesn't change your AB blood type, colored contacts doesn't change your eye color, and wearing a dress or pants doesn't change your sex. The sex change changes your gender to the one you most identify with, which previously was not the same as your sex.

 

I *think* I worded that correctly... But maybe not....

[luuknam]

I don't *think* a birth certificate would have to be changed anyways. What sex you are is not going to change with the surgery. Your DNA will stay you are male or female. Just like getting an O-neg blood transfusion doesn't change your AB blood type, colored contacts doesn't change your eye color, and wearing a dress or pants doesn't change your sex. The sex change changes your gender to the one you most identify with, which previously was not the same as your sex.

 

I *think* I worded that correctly... But maybe not....

 

But why does it even matter? Why does it have to be on a birth certificate to begin with? Why would it matter if someone wanted to have it changed, after they've changed everything else that can be changed?

 

Truth be told, I don't care all that much about birth certificates because you rarely have to use them. What I do care about is passports and driver's licenses.

[Halcyon]

I chose my actions. Yes I did. And btw sometimes I made mistakes with my actions. Stopping and not doing a thing I believed was wrong was also my choice.

 

Let's just pretend we live in a world where having homosexual relations is the "norm". And opposite sex attraction is "abnormal".

 

You are told that you can "choose your actions", that you don't need to just willy-nilly follow your "feelings". Feelings shmeelings!!!! You are told (by society, your parents, the culture around you) that that relations with the opposite sex are wrong. You are told that to be accepted as "normal", you need to love another woman, marry another woman, have sex with another woman, share your love with another woman, spend your life with another woman. As you say above, "stopping and not doing a thing [you believe to be wrong] is your choice." So this would be no big deal for you, right?

 

(Remember, it was you who wrote that "feelings aren't easy to change and maybe impossible....but feelings also often follow actions....the more we act on feelings the more deeply entrenched they become.)

 

So go ahead, do it. Marry a woman. After all, you choose your actions, and feelings follow actions. And if you just keep acting a certain way, surely you will learn to love a woman, right? And finally, (Praise the LORD!!!) BECOME NORMAL!!!! Learn to deny yourself, for Pete's sake!!! Deny what you believe to be your "true" self! (What a bunch of hogwash, all this "true self" cr*p!) Choose the right way!!! Above all: Don't be abnormal!!!! And be sure to conform to current societal rules on what is right, and what is wrong, even if that means denying who you believe yourself to be. Because YOU are wrong, but WE, yes WE, are surely right.

[MamaBearTeacher]

I don't know much about transgender issues and I have never known anyone transgendered or someone who told me they wanted to be. I have only really heard about this issue in recent years. Bruce Jenner will bring this issue much greater recognition. I would be surprised if everyone readily accepted transgender people but I am happy to see so many on this board who do. Whenever acceptance replaces hate and intolerance it is a good thing!

 

Would most transgender people not feel the need for surgery and hormones if they had greater acceptance and people accepted the gender they wanted to be? I guess this is the part I have trouble wrapping my head around. Are risky surgery and hormone treatments the only solution? I also don't fully understand how this is so different from someone who doesn't feel like they are in the right body for other reasons ie. they don't like their height, weight or facial features? For some, these feelings can be very strong. Is plastic surgery the answer?

[Murphy101]

But why does it even matter? Why does it have to be on a birth certificate to begin with? Why would it matter if someone wanted to have it changed, after they've changed everything else that can be changed?

 

Truth be told, I don't care all that much about birth certificates because you rarely have to use them. What I do care about is passports and driver's licenses.

*shrug*

 

Idk. I'm all for living off grid if people want to, but in our current society a birth certificate is a form of proof of identity. It's often considered the most easily accessible form of proof to get a passport or a driver's license.

 

I agree that I don't know how effective it is at that. Case in point, it can say male and they can biologically have male DNA with female anatomy due to surgery. It can say ___ is your father when actually your mother spelt (ETA: LOL really autocorrect? - SLEPT) with three different guys and who knows which one is the actually bio father. It says your birth weight and where you were born, but no one ever weighs that again and fewer and fewer live anywhere near where they were born....

 

But what proof of identity IS worth diddly these days? Retina scans? Hmmmm. Maybe a contact lense could trick it.... A blood prick? Ouch. I sure don't want my blood pricked every time I need to show ID. Finger print? I guess. It's not perfect, but less painful than a blood prick. Of course then we have the whole cluster mess of all someone has to do is hack a computer and rematch the fingerprint to another name...

 

Anyhow. I was just saying since the DNA remains the same, I think there is reasonable argument that the birth certificate would not have to be changed. Whether it should or shouldn't be is a whole other discussion.

[luuknam]

*shrug*

 

Idk. I'm all for living off grid if people want to, but in our current society a birth certificate is a form of proof of identity. It's often considered the most easily accessible form of proof to get a passport or a driver's license.

 

Anyhow. I was just saying since the DNA remains the same, I think there is reasonable argument that the birth certificate would not have to be changed. Whether it should or shouldn't be is a whole other discussion.

 

 

Huh, turns out a birth certificate doesn't even need to have sex on it for passport applications. Requirements are:

Certified U.S. Birth Certificate (must meet all of the following requirements):

• Issued by City, County, or State of birth
• Lists bearer's full name, date of birth, and place of birth
• Lists parent(s) full names
• Has date filed with registrar's office (must be within one year of birth)
• Has registrar's signature
• Has embossed, impressed, or multicolored seal of registrar

 

So, I'm guessing it's state/local rules that make people write male/female on the birth certificate. You do need either your parents' photo IDs (if you're a minor) or your own photo ID (if you're an adult) as well. There are additional documentation requirements if the sex on the documents you present them doesn't match (which makes sense... any discrepancies in documentation should warrant further documentation).

 

I think writing "male" or "female" on a birth certificate is a really lousy method for identification purposes. Most people trying to pretend they're someone else would have an easier job just pretending to be someone of the same gender. Plus, roughly half of the population is male and half is female, so that's not very specific to begin with.

 

Yes, you could have an argument about whether DNA is so important that it should be the deciding factor on what sex is on a birth certificate. You could even have an argument that even if we found some way (nanotech?) to change someone's DNA from XX to XY (or vice versa) the birth certificate should stay the same just because it indicates how things were at *birth*. I already said that I'm pretty pragmatic... I don't see why it'd be important to keep the birth certificate the same, because it's not some sort of metaphysical truth... it's just some government document.

[elegantlion]

Huh, turns out a birth certificate doesn't even need to have sex on it for passport applications. Requirements are:

Certified U.S. Birth Certificate (must meet all of the following requirements):

• Issued by City, County, or State of birth
• Lists bearer's full name, date of birth, and place of birth
• Lists parent(s) full names
• Has date filed with registrar's office (must be within one year of birth)
• Has registrar's signature
• Has embossed, impressed, or multicolored seal of registrar

 

So, I'm guessing it's state/local rules that make people write male/female on the birth certificate. You do need either your parents' photo IDs (if you're a minor) or your own photo ID (if you're an adult) as well. There are additional documentation requirements if the sex on the documents you present them doesn't match (which makes sense... any discrepancies in documentation should warrant further documentation).

 

I think writing "male" or "female" on a birth certificate is a really lousy method for identification purposes. Most people trying to pretend they're someone else would have an easier job just pretending to be someone of the same gender. Plus, roughly half of the population is male and half is female, so that's not very specific to begin with.

 

Yes, you could have an argument about whether DNA is so important that it should be the deciding factor on what sex is on a birth certificate. You could even have an argument that even if we found some way (nanotech?) to change someone's DNA from XX to XY (or vice versa) the birth certificate should stay the same just because it indicates how things were at *birth*. I already said that I'm pretty pragmatic... I don't see why it'd be important to keep the birth certificate the same, because it's not some sort of metaphysical truth... it's just some government document.

 

 

It's also historical documentation. I do a lot of genealogy research and you get back a few hundred years and names are not always true indicators of male/female. I had a great grandfather named Lois - this is normally a woman's spelling. I have an ancestor named Experience - male, but would you know without other factors? I wouldn't have. 

 

So there is historical purpose about marking documents with gender. I can imagine in the future this will create an interesting twist of genealogy research. 

 

It was pain enough to do a name change on current documents after my divorce. 

[luuknam]

It's also historical documentation. I do a lot of genealogy research and you get back a few hundred years and names are not always true indicators of male/female. I had a great grandfather named Lois - this is normally a woman's spelling. I have an ancestor named Experience - male, but would you know without other factors? I wouldn't have. 

 

So there is historical purpose about marking documents with gender. I can imagine in the future this will create an interesting twist of genealogy research.

 

I see your point. However, I'm also wondering why it's that important to know what the person's biological sex was. In the future, I don't think I'd want my great great grand kids to even care what my sex was (on the 'bright' side, they probably won't even care to know who I was, period, unless I do something world-changing between now and then). If they're going to bother looking up their ancestors, I'd want them to maybe find out a bit about who I was as a person. I don't believe that sex/gender is as important as society makes it out to be (really, I wish it would just go away).

 

P.S. Giving birth to Experience must have been quite the experience, huh?

[Scarlett]

Let's just pretend we live in a world where having homosexual relations is the "norm". And opposite sex attraction is "abnormal".

 

You are told that you can "choose your actions", that you don't need to just willy-nilly follow your "feelings". Feelings shmeelings!!!! You are told (by society, your parents, the culture around you) that that relations with the opposite sex are wrong. You are told that to be accepted as "normal", you need to love another woman, marry another woman, have sex with another woman, share your love with another woman, spend your life with another woman. As you say above, "stopping and not doing a thing [you believe to be wrong] is your choice." So this would be no big deal for you, right?

 

(Remember, it was you who wrote that "feelings aren't easy to change and maybe impossible....but feelings also often follow actions....the more we act on feelings the more deeply entrenched they become.)

 

So go ahead, do it. Marry a woman. After all, you choose your actions, and feelings follow actions. And if you just keep acting a certain way, surely you will learn to love a woman, right? And finally, (Praise the LORD!!!) BECOME NORMAL!!!! Learn to deny yourself, for Pete's sake!!! Deny what you believe to be your "true" self! (What a bunch of hogwash, all this "true self" cr*p!) Choose the right way!!! Above all: Don't be abnormal!!!! And be sure to conform to current societal rules on what is right, and what is wrong, even if that means denying who you believe yourself to be. Because YOU are wrong, but WE, yes WE, are surely right.

This is clearly a very emotional topic for you. I am sorry if I have upset you.

 

I live my life to please my God, not society. Many many aspects of my religious life are outside of mainstream society. So I do know it feels to be different.

 

I have never advocated a person marry ANYONE they are not attracted to. Certainly not someone they are repulsed by.

 

We all get to live our lives the way we see fit.

[TranquilMind]

"People are losing jobs" is hyperbole.

 

They are losing jobs/business because they want to use their jobs/business to assert their view on the consuming public; not because they have their beliefs.

Whoa.  No.  Should one of those cake makers or pizza makers have taken a bullhorn to the public square to excoriate others and condemn them, or written hateful public pieces about how everyone is going to hell (a la Westboro, for example), you might have a point.  For someone to target their businesses because they are Christian, go TO the Christian business and request a wedding Cake (in the first instance) for a wedding, and hearing, in response, "Well, I wouldn't be comfortable doing that. We've done weddings for 30 years, but not a same sex ceremony, since they are not recognized in our beliefs, so we do traditional weddings. Sue over on Main Street does a lot of weddings" and to get sued for adhering to those religious beliefs that only traditional weddings are "weddings" in their longstanding business and under their religious beliefs?  Freaking insane.   

Had the Christian targeted the gay business and gone to ask for something the owner had felt unpalatable due to his political (or religious) beliefs, people would be screaming about the audacity of the request in the first place. 

 

We've covered all this in previous thread so won't belabor.  Just wanted to point out that your statement that the owners are asserting their views inappropriately by adhering to their longstanding business practices and religious beliefs  as to what is a "wedding" is nuts.  And again, only *weddings*...not any other sort of celebration whatsoever. 

[elegantlion]

I see your point. However, I'm also wondering why it's that important to know what the person's biological sex was. In the future, I don't think I'd want my great great grand kids to even care what my sex was (on the 'bright' side, they probably won't even care to know who I was, period, unless I do something world-changing between now and then). If they're going to bother looking up their ancestors, I'd want them to maybe find out a bit about who I was as a person. I don't believe that sex/gender is as important as society makes it out to be (really, I wish it would just go away).

 

P.S. Giving birth to Experience must have been quite the experience, huh?

 

 

I do think it will interesting historically to see a shift in the acceptance of transgender people. Tracking through birth certificates could be one way to do that - not as a government entity, but as a historian perhaps looking back 100 years from now. 

 

I always prefer the stories too and I also have issues with pre-determined gender roles. Right now my neighbor is out mowing my yard, he didn't even ask and I just mowed it not too long ago. He's trying to be neighborly as I'm a single parent, I get it. However, it's kind of annoying to do it without asking first, he wouldn't do that if I were a guy. 

 

I was shopping for a shirt this week and women's styles right now are not too great at the lower price points. I even went to a high end store and couldn't find anything classic that was affordable. Men's styles were more appealing. 

[albeto.]

nm 

 

Edited April 29, 2015 by Susan Wise Bauer
Comparing board members to terrorists is not OK.