Religions > Atheism > Federal Appeals Court Rejects Demand of "Transsexuals" for Special Rights
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"J Young" |
| Date: |
27 Sep 2007 12:25:47 AM |
| Object: |
Federal Appeals Court Rejects Demand of "Transsexuals" for Special Rights |
Thankfully there are times when common sense wins the day.
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/sep/07092602.html
Federal Appeals Court Rejects Demand of "Transsexuals" for Special
Rights
DENVER, September 26, 2007
(LifeSiteNews.com) - A federal appeals court has issued a significant
ruling saying that an employer's concern over the use of restrooms by
"transsexual" employees is legitimate, according to Alliance Defense
Fund Senior Legal Counsel Brian Raum. Raum explained further that the
court ruled that "transsexuals" do not qualify as a protected class
under Title VII.
"The court delivered a significant legal punch to political special
interest groups who are demanding that persons with Gender Identity
Disorder be treated as though they were members of the opposite sex.
The court correctly ruled that employers have a valid concern
regarding their employees' proper use of public restrooms," said Raum.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit ruled Thursday that the
Utah Transit Authority had a legitimate concern over a male employee's
restroom usage. Michael Etsitty, a male employee, had begun taking
female hormone therapy and wearing women's jewelry and makeup but
still had male sex organs. UTA had liability concerns regarding the
man's use of women's bathrooms.
A copy of Thursday's ruling in Etsitty v. Utah Transit Authority can
be read at http://www.telladf.org/UserDocs/UTADecision.pdf
.
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Federal Appeals Court Rejects Demand of "Transsexuals" for Special Rights |
10 Oct 2007 10:50:11 PM |
|
|
Wexford <wryan77@gmail.com> wrote:
rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Wexford <wrya...@gmail.com> wrote:
Lars, you're correct, of course. Gender is social and psychological,
but nevertheless, as long as you still have the biological parts for a
man, you are a man whether you want to be or not. The same holds true
for a woman.
What "biological parts" are you referring to? Genitals? Breasts?
Ovaries? A uterus?
No answer?
"Sex change" operations don't change sex. They mutilate
the organs and make the parts look as if they belong to the opposite
sex.
In your opinion.
No. It's fact.
No, it's an opinion.
You cannot change someone's sex,
But when I asked you how you determine sex you couldn't even answer.
So if you do not know a person's sex, how do you know if it can be
changed?
A man who undergoes a sex change does not acquire a uterus and
ovaries and a woman who undergoes one does not get testicles or a
working penis.
And what sex is a person who has no ovaries or uterus?
It's a moot question once the mutilation is over, but the person never
leaves the sex of birth.
And what sex is a person who has no ovaries or uterus?
To a certain extent, I think that the doctors and psychologists who
work with these cases exploit the neurosis of people who have confused
sexual identity and talk them into a protracted and expense process of
hormone treatment and medical mutilations.
And what is your medical/psychiatric training that would qualify you
to justify such an opinion?
I don't have to justify an opinion.
Then my opinion is that you're an ignorant bigot too insecure in your
own sexuality to accept anybody else's.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wexford" |
|
| Title: Re: Federal Appeals Court Rejects Demand of "Transsexuals" for Special Rights |
11 Oct 2007 02:45:04 PM |
|
|
On Oct 10, 11:50 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Wexford <wrya...@gmail.com> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
Wexford <wrya...@gmail.com> wrote:
Lars, you're correct, of course. Gender is social and psychological,
but nevertheless, as long as you still have the biological parts for a
man, you are a man whether you want to be or not. The same holds true
for a woman.
What "biological parts" are you referring to? Genitals? Breasts?
Ovaries? A uterus?
No answer?
No. Google Groups didn't display the question. Be serious -- genitals,
breasts, ovaries, uterus, vagina, testicles, the whole kit.
"Sex change" operations don't change sex. They mutilate
the organs and make the parts look as if they belong to the opposite
sex.
In your opinion.
No. It's fact.
No, it's an opinion.
No. It's fact. Unless you know of some surgeon who can magically
transform one sex into another, anything you do to change the look of
the genitalia amounts to mutilation and cosmetic construction. Some
people think this is a good thing because they believe that certain
individuals are emotionally and physically imprisoned in the worng
sex. Perhaps they're right; I just don't buy it.
There are people who are convinced that they should be mutilated and
long to have their legs, arms and other parts amputated. They'll go
so far as to freeze their legs and arms in dry ice, killing the tissue
and forcing an amputation. I'm certain those poor folks are just as
dedicated to changing their bodies (perhaps more so) as people who
want their gentials cosmetically mutilated.
You cannot change someone's sex,
But when I asked you how you determine sex you couldn't even answer.
So if you do not know a person's sex, how do you know if it can be
changed?
Pardon? You asked me what and I couldn't answer? Detemining sex for
the most part is pretty damn simple. You pull down the underpants and
look. In the vast, vast majority of cases, if there is a vagina, the
person is female. If there are a penis and testicles, the person is
male. Sometimes people are born with some of the physical traits of
both sexes, but that's extremely rare. Sometimes babies are born
blind, but that dosen't mean we can't define sight, that it's an
elusive and difficult thing, that people who want to be blind should
be able to have their eyes plucked out.
A man who undergoes a sex change does not acquire a uterus and
ovaries and a woman who undergoes one does not get testicles or a
working penis.
And what sex is a person who has no ovaries or uterus?
It's a moot question once the mutilation is over, but the person never
leaves the sex of birth.
And what sex is a person who has no ovaries or uterus?
The sex the person had at birth. There are any number of thousands of
women walking around who have had hysterectomies. Ask one of them.
To a certain extent, I think that the doctors and psychologists who
work with these cases exploit the neurosis of people who have confused
sexual identity and talk them into a protracted and expense process of
hormone treatment and medical mutilations.
And what is your medical/psychiatric training that would qualify you
to justify such an opinion?
I don't have to justify an opinion.
Then my opinion is that you're an ignorant bigot too insecure in your
own sexuality to accept anybody else's.
Uh... what? No, in fact I'm pretty well informed on the topic. I'm a
bigot, why??? I have nothing against transexuals, or any particular
group for that matter. If an individual has gone through this and has
benefited from it, then fine. I just think the science is flakey and
the procedures are grossly radical. In addition,I don't like
irreversable medical procedures, especially when they're based on
(what I consider to be) psychobabble, they're for cosmetic purposes,
and they're not only initially very expensive, but they tie the
individual to a lifetime of consuming expensive drugs and ongoing
medical treatment. If someone wants to do it, that's his or her
business; it's legal and the medical profession seems to condone it
(they make money on it, of course). In my opinion, it's a horrid
misuse of medical art, in violation of the Hyppocratic Oath, and
ultimately harmful to the individual. If I have a bias, it's against
radical, irreversable, mutilating medical procedures, not against
individuals.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Federal Appeals Court Rejects Demand of "Transsexuals" for Special Rights |
11 Oct 2007 11:22:52 PM |
|
|
Wexford <wryan77@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 10, 11:50 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Wexford <wrya...@gmail.com> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
Wexford <wrya...@gmail.com> wrote:
Lars, you're correct, of course. Gender is social and psychological,
but nevertheless, as long as you still have the biological parts for a
man, you are a man whether you want to be or not. The same holds true
for a woman.
What "biological parts" are you referring to? Genitals? Breasts?
Ovaries? A uterus?
No answer?
No. Google Groups didn't display the question. Be serious -- genitals,
breasts, ovaries, uterus, vagina, testicles, the whole kit.
Then you have a problem with there being more than two sexes. Some
people are born without some of the bits that you require.
"Sex change" operations don't change sex. They mutilate
the organs and make the parts look as if they belong to the opposite
sex.
In your opinion.
No. It's fact.
No, it's an opinion.
No. It's fact.
Stamp your foot and maybe it will become a fact, but so far it's still
an opinion.
Unless you know of some surgeon who can magically
transform one sex into another,
You don't even know what sexes there are or how to identify them.
anything you do to change the look of
the genitalia amounts to mutilation and cosmetic construction.
In your opinion. You believe it's mutilation, but other people
believe it's correction.
You cannot change someone's sex,
But when I asked you how you determine sex you couldn't even answer.
So if you do not know a person's sex, how do you know if it can be
changed?
Pardon? You asked me what and I couldn't answer? Detemining sex for
the most part is pretty damn simple. You pull down the underpants and
look.
Ah, so you rely upon genitals. Well there are some that defy a simple
classification. It's long been a problem with doctors that when an
infant is born with ambiguous genitals they try to figure out what
sex the child actually is in order to perform corrective surgery.
Type "ambiguous genitals" into Google and educate yourself. I got
about 200,000 hits. Wikipedia has a decent introduction:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex
In the vast, vast majority of cases, if there is a vagina, the
person is female. If there are a penis and testicles, the person is
male. Sometimes people are born with some of the physical traits of
both sexes, but that's extremely rare.
And when it's rare you don't know what to do. You just decide that
people should accept your arbitrary assignment for no better reason
than that you're an arrogant *****.
A man who undergoes a sex change does not acquire a uterus and
ovaries and a woman who undergoes one does not get testicles or a
working penis.
And what sex is a person who has no ovaries or uterus?
It's a moot question once the mutilation is over, but the person never
leaves the sex of birth.
And what sex is a person who has no ovaries or uterus?
The sex the person had at birth.
What sex is that?
There are any number of thousands of
women walking around who have had hysterectomies. Ask one of them.
I wasn't referring to hysterectomy. I was referring to people who
were born without uterus or ovaries.
To a certain extent, I think that the doctors and psychologists who
work with these cases exploit the neurosis of people who have confused
sexual identity and talk them into a protracted and expense process of
hormone treatment and medical mutilations.
And what is your medical/psychiatric training that would qualify you
to justify such an opinion?
I don't have to justify an opinion.
Then my opinion is that you're an ignorant bigot too insecure in your
own sexuality to accept anybody else's.
Uh... what? No, in fact I'm pretty well informed on the topic.
Obviously not.
I'm a
bigot, why???
Because you're intolerant of any sexuality that doesn't conform to
your simple-minded binary classification.
I have nothing against transexuals, or any particular
group for that matter. If an individual has gone through this and has
benefited from it, then fine. I just think the science is flakey and
the procedures are grossly radical.
Even though you clearly have very little knowledge.
In addition,I don't like
irreversable medical procedures,
Then don't get any.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wexford" |
|
| Title: Re: Federal Appeals Court Rejects Demand of "Transsexuals" for Special Rights |
12 Oct 2007 09:29:53 AM |
|
|
On Oct 12, 12:22 am, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Wexford <wrya...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 10, 11:50 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Wexford <wrya...@gmail.com> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
Wexford <wrya...@gmail.com> wrote:
Lars, you're correct, of course. Gender is social and psychological,
but nevertheless, as long as you still have the biological parts for a
man, you are a man whether you want to be or not. The same holds true
for a woman.
What "biological parts" are you referring to? Genitals? Breasts?
Ovaries? A uterus?
No answer?
????????????????
No. Google Groups didn't display the question. Be serious -- genitals,
breasts, ovaries, uterus, vagina, testicles, the whole kit.
Then you have a problem with there being more than two sexes. Some
people are born without some of the bits that you require.
No, I don't have a problem with aberrations. I know they occur. Some
people are born with thier backs open. Some people are born with their
arms or legs or both missing or malformed. Some people are born hare-
lipped. It happens. If it's possible to correct the condition or
mitigate it, then fine, by all means do so. One of the wonders of
modern medicine is that we can fix or at least mitigate conditions
that at one time condemned the individual to a life crippled or
malformed.
"Sex change" operations don't change sex. They mutilate
the organs and make the parts look as if they belong to the opposite
sex.
In your opinion.
No. It's fact.
No, it's an opinion.
No. It's fact.
Stamp your foot and maybe it will become a fact, but so far it's still
an opinion.
Show me one transexual who was changed from male genitalia to the
appearance of female who then got pregnant and bore children, or one
once-female who could produce sperm. Until you can do that, I'm
right.
Unless you know of some surgeon who can magically
transform one sex into another,
You don't even know what sexes there are or how to identify them.
You snipped about 3/4 of my post. I sure as hell know what the sexes
are, and said how they could be identified.
anything you do to change the look of
the genitalia amounts to mutilation and cosmetic construction.
In your opinion. You believe it's mutilation, but other people
believe it's correction.
If there is nothing wrong with the genitals, it's mutilation and
cosmetic adjustment. Fixing a hare-lip is correction.
You cannot change someone's sex,
But when I asked you how you determine sex you couldn't even answer.
So if you do not know a person's sex, how do you know if it can be
changed?
Pardon? You asked me what and I couldn't answer? Detemining sex for
the most part is pretty damn simple. You pull down the underpants and
look.
Ah, so you rely upon genitals. Well there are some that defy a simple
classification. It's long been a problem with doctors that when an
infant is born with ambiguous genitals they try to figure out what
sex the child actually is in order to perform corrective surgery.
Infants are born without legs, too. Does that mean we can't define a
"leg" or a "foot?" Aberrations are by definition different. The small
percentage of babies born with ambiguous genitals testifies only to
the imperfection of life, not to anything else. Doctors, by the way,
have made some pretty damn awful mistakes mucking around with the
gentials of infants. Some people grow up with the traits of both sexes
and are quite content to live that way. Others find it debilitating.
In any event, it's aberrant and aberrations prove nothing except that
they exist.
Type "ambiguous genitals" into Google and educate yourself. I got
about 200,000 hits. Wikipedia has a decent introduction:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex
We aren't discussing "intersex," though, are we? We were discussing
transexuals, people who aren't malformed or necessarily possessed of
the physical traits of both sexes but who think they are trapped in
the wrong sex.
In the vast, vast majority of cases, if there is a vagina, the
person is female. If there are a penis and testicles, the person is
male. Sometimes people are born with some of the physical traits of
both sexes, but that's extremely rare.
And when it's rare you don't know what to do. You just decide that
people should accept your arbitrary assignment for no better reason
than that you're an arrogant *****.
No. I'm clearly not addressing transexuals. You're trying to change
the topic because you can't form a cogent argument. Insulting me
doesn't help. It only makes you look stupid.
A man who undergoes a sex change does not acquire a uterus and
ovaries and a woman who undergoes one does not get testicles or a
working penis.
And what sex is a person who has no ovaries or uterus?
It's a moot question once the mutilation is over, but the person never
leaves the sex of birth.
And what sex is a person who has no ovaries or uterus?
The sex the person had at birth.
What sex is that?
Take a look at them. Hell, you can even see it before the child is
born.
There are any number of thousands of
women walking around who have had hysterectomies. Ask one of them.
I wasn't referring to hysterectomy. I was referring to people who
were born without uterus or ovaries.
Again, you divert into aberrations and try to make them the rule.
People are born hare-lipped, too. Does that mean I can't define
"mouth" or "lip" or that there's no such thing as a normal, well-
formed lip?
To a certain extent, I think that the doctors and psychologists who
work with these cases exploit the neurosis of people who have confused
sexual identity and talk them into a protracted and expense process of
hormone treatment and medical mutilations.
And what is your medical/psychiatric training that would qualify you
to justify such an opinion?
I don't have to justify an opinion.
Then my opinion is that you're an ignorant bigot too insecure in your
own sexuality to accept anybody else's.
Uh... what? No, in fact I'm pretty well informed on the topic.
Obviously not.
Why? Because you disagree?
I'm a
bigot, why???
Because you're intolerant of any sexuality that doesn't conform to
your simple-minded binary classification.
No. I clearly stated that I don't particuarly care. I have no bias
against anyone who goes through sex change procedures. I haven't met
many of them, because there aren't many around. I am concerned about
doctors who perform irreversable medical procedures done for reasons I
don't think are sufficient.
I have nothing against transexuals, or any particular
group for that matter. If an individual has gone through this and has
benefited from it, then fine. I just think the science is flakey and
the procedures are grossly radical.
Even though you clearly have very little knowledge.
Clearly? Based on what? You haven't offered a single scientific fact
to support anything you've said. If I'm wrong then tell me where and
how. So far all you've done is snip my comments, tried to change the
subject, or insulted me.
In addition,I don't like
irreversable medical procedures,
Then don't get any.
I hope I never have to. It wasn't so long ago that doctors regularly
performed castrations or removed the ovaries of people they thought
mentally or physically unfit to bear children. Stephen Gould has a
whole section of the book, "The Mismeasure of Man" devoted to one such
famous case. Lobotomies were popular up to the 1960s. These utterly
horrid procedures were performed by the thousands on mental patients
at the whim of the doctor who had them in his custody. I'm not
entirely sure that sex change operations might not fall into a similar
category of medical infamy at some time in the future. It might be
that drug therapy and counseling may someday transform miserable
people who think they're trapped in the wrong sex into happy heteroes
or gays eternally thankful that they didn't have their genitals
mutilated.
If there is any expression of intolerance here, it's yours. If I don't
agree with you, I'm a bigot. If I think a radical, irreversable
medical procedure is a bad idea, I'm arrogant and an *****. All I'm
doing is offering a bit of contrary thought on the topic from a
friendly perspective.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Federal Appeals Court Rejects Demand of "Transsexuals" for Special Rights |
12 Oct 2007 10:00:23 PM |
|
|
Wexford <wryan77@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 12, 12:22 am, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Wexford <wrya...@gmail.com> wrote:
No. Google Groups didn't display the question. Be serious -- genitals,
breasts, ovaries, uterus, vagina, testicles, the whole kit.
Then you have a problem with there being more than two sexes. Some
people are born without some of the bits that you require.
No, I don't have a problem with aberrations. I know they occur. Some
people are born with thier backs open. Some people are born with their
arms or legs or both missing or malformed. Some people are born hare-
lipped. It happens. If it's possible to correct the condition or
mitigate it, then fine, by all means do so.
Oh, so now it's "correction" but when YOU don't like it, it's "mutilation".
Nothing like a double-standard, eh?
Unless you know of some surgeon who can magically
transform one sex into another,
You don't even know what sexes there are or how to identify them.
You snipped about 3/4 of my post.
Less ***** is better than more *****.
I sure as hell know what the sexes
are,
And yet you have been unable to come up with a definitive way of
telling one from the other.
and said how they could be identified.
And I pointed out how your method was crap.
anything you do to change the look of
the genitalia amounts to mutilation and cosmetic construction.
In your opinion. You believe it's mutilation, but other people
believe it's correction.
If there is nothing wrong with the genitals, it's mutilation and
cosmetic adjustment.
In your OPINION which, as we see from above, is just a self-serving
rationalization.
Pardon? You asked me what and I couldn't answer? Detemining sex for
the most part is pretty damn simple. You pull down the underpants and
look.
Ah, so you rely upon genitals. Well there are some that defy a simple
classification. It's long been a problem with doctors that when an
infant is born with ambiguous genitals they try to figure out what
sex the child actually is in order to perform corrective surgery.
Infants are born without legs, too. Does that mean we can't define a
"leg" or a "foot?"
So you admit that a person with ambiguous genetical doesn't have a sex
just as a person without a foot doesn't have a foot?
Aberrations are by definition different. The small
percentage of babies born with ambiguous genitals testifies only to
the imperfection of life, not to anything else.
And proves that you don't know how to define a person's sex.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wexford" |
|
| Title: Re: Federal Appeals Court Rejects Demand of "Transsexuals" for Special Rights |
14 Oct 2007 12:44:06 PM |
|
|
On Oct 12, 11:00 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Wexford <wrya...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 12, 12:22 am, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Wexford <wrya...@gmail.com> wrote:
No. Google Groups didn't display the question. Be serious -- genitals,
breasts, ovaries, uterus, vagina, testicles, the whole kit.
Then you have a problem with there being more than two sexes. Some
people are born without some of the bits that you require.
No, I don't have a problem with aberrations. I know they occur. Some
people are born with thier backs open. Some people are born with their
arms or legs or both missing or malformed. Some people are born hare-
lipped. It happens. If it's possible to correct the condition or
mitigate it, then fine, by all means do so.
Oh, so now it's "correction" but when YOU don't like it, it's "mutilation".
Nothing like a double-standard, eh?
No, you blithering idiot, it's a single standard. Cutting off a
perferctly formed penis and using its parts to line a cavity created
sugically in the abdomen of a male to make him appear to be female is
mutilation. Correcting a horrid, debiliting disfigurement, like hare-
lip, is restoring both normal appearance and function. One is
distruction of a correctly formed working part, the other is
correction and restoration of function of a malformed part.
Unless you know of some surgeon who can magically
transform one sex into another,
You don't even know what sexes there are or how to identify them.
You snipped about 3/4 of my post.
Less ***** is better than more *****.
???? Guess you couldn't handle it. Funny, I didn't think it necessry
to snip any of your responses.
I sure as hell know what the sexes
are,
And yet you have been unable to come up with a definitive way of
telling one from the other.
This is interesting. I told you how to distinguish them. You responded
by citing the fact that there are aberrations. I responded by stating
that aberrations don't create the rule. You seem to think that because
some tiny percentage of the population is born with aberrant or
ambiguous sexual function and/or appearance, that no standard of
normalcy is possible. Given that premise, dimwit, you can't argue for
the authenticity of transexuals, either, since the very notion of
transexual implies there is some stadard for what the sexes are and
that surgery can correct mind-body disconnects regarding sexual
identity. You've negated your own position.
and said how they could be identified.
And I pointed out how your method was crap.
No you didn't. You changed the subject to intersex. I pointed out that
babies are sometimes born without legs, too, and asked rhetorcially if
that means we can't define "leg" or "foot." You couldn't respond so
you didn't.
anything you do to change the look of
the genitalia amounts to mutilation and cosmetic construction.
In your opinion. You believe it's mutilation, but other people
believe it's correction.
If there is nothing wrong with the genitals, it's mutilation and
cosmetic adjustment.
In your OPINION which, as we see from above, is just a self-serving
rationalization.
No. It's mutilation and cosmetic manipulation. Your argument is that
these radical, irreversable procedures are corrections to a congenital
problem involving the mind, body and sexual identity. You haven't
shown one shread of scientific evidence, or even common sense, to
support what you've said. Your entire argument is based on emotional
support for people who have undergone sex "change" or who want to
endure the procedures. I pointed out that some people want their limbs
amputated, too. We don't indulge those fancies, or should we?
Pardon? You asked me what and I couldn't answer? Detemining sex for
the most part is pretty damn simple. You pull down the underpants and
look.
Ah, so you rely upon genitals. Well there are some that defy a simple
classification. It's long been a problem with doctors that when an
infant is born with ambiguous genitals they try to figure out what
sex the child actually is in order to perform corrective surgery.
Infants are born without legs, too. Does that mean we can't define a
"leg" or a "foot?"
So you admit that a person with ambiguous genetical doesn't have a sex
just as a person without a foot doesn't have a foot?
??? You're changing the subject to intersexuals (I don't know why they
use this ugly term. "Hermaphrodite" was a lot more attractive.).
Theoretially, a person could be born without any sexual organs at all.
So what? People are born sightless. Does that mean we can't define
"sight," or reasonably state that the norm is "sighted?"
Aberrations are by definition different. The small
percentage of babies born with ambiguous genitals testifies only to
the imperfection of life, not to anything else.
And proves that you don't know how to define a person's sex.
No it doesn't. It only proves you're too dense to understand the
argument, or you simply refuse to follow it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Federal Appeals Court Rejects Demand of "Transsexuals" for Special Rights |
14 Oct 2007 01:08:59 PM |
|
|
Wexford <wryan77@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 12, 11:00 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Wexford <wrya...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 12, 12:22 am, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Wexford <wrya...@gmail.com> wrote:
No. Google Groups didn't display the question. Be serious -- genitals,
breasts, ovaries, uterus, vagina, testicles, the whole kit.
Then you have a problem with there being more than two sexes. Some
people are born without some of the bits that you require.
No, I don't have a problem with aberrations. I know they occur. Some
people are born with thier backs open. Some people are born with their
arms or legs or both missing or malformed. Some people are born hare-
lipped. It happens. If it's possible to correct the condition or
mitigate it, then fine, by all means do so.
Oh, so now it's "correction" but when YOU don't like it, it's "mutilation".
Nothing like a double-standard, eh?
No, you blithering idiot, it's a single standard. Cutting off a
perferctly formed penis and using its parts to line a cavity created
Oh, so YOU are the Absolute Truth about what is "perfect" and what
needs correction. Got it.
I sure as hell know what the sexes
are,
And yet you have been unable to come up with a definitive way of
telling one from the other.
This is interesting. I told you how to distinguish them.
And I told you why your method was crap.
You responded
by citing the fact that there are aberrations. I responded by stating
that aberrations don't create the rule.
But you do not have a rule that always works.
You seem to think that because
some tiny percentage of the population is born with aberrant or
ambiguous sexual function and/or appearance, that no standard of
normalcy is possible.
No, idiot. Your "standard" is nothing more than your personal
preference. "Normal" is a purely SUBJECTIVE standard.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wexford" |
|
| Title: Re: Federal Appeals Court Rejects Demand of "Transsexuals" for Special Rights |
15 Oct 2007 10:29:27 AM |
|
|
On Oct 14, 2:08 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Wexford <wrya...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 12, 11:00 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Wexford <wrya...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 12, 12:22 am, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Wexford <wrya...@gmail.com> wrote:
No. Google Groups didn't display the question. Be serious -- genitals,
breasts, ovaries, uterus, vagina, testicles, the whole kit.
Then you have a problem with there being more than two sexes. Some
people are born without some of the bits that you require.
No, I don't have a problem with aberrations. I know they occur. Some
people are born with thier backs open. Some people are born with their
arms or legs or both missing or malformed. Some people are born hare-
lipped. It happens. If it's possible to correct the condition or
mitigate it, then fine, by all means do so.
Oh, so now it's "correction" but when YOU don't like it, it's "mutilation".
//////
Nothing like a double-standard, eh?
No, you blithering idiot, it's a single standard. Cutting off a
perferctly formed penis and using its parts to line a cavity created
Oh, so YOU are the Absolute Truth about what is "perfect" and what
needs correction. Got it.
Snipped the response again, I see. Look, if you can't handle
reasonable argument don't respond. Snipping is the newsgroup way of
sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "la, la, la, la, la ..."
I sure as hell know what the sexes
are,
And yet you have been unable to come up with a definitive way of
telling one from the other.
This is interesting. I told you how to distinguish them.
And I told you why your method was crap.
No you didn't. You told me nothing.
You responded
by citing the fact that there are aberrations. I responded by stating
that aberrations don't create the rule.
But you do not have a rule that always works.
No biological rule "always works." The vast majority of people are
born with properly formed, working genitals, and have no problem with
sexual identity. That's the rule. Unless you have data that disproves
it, shut the hell up. The "rule" does not rule out aberrations, but
aberrations are not the subject here. Transexuals are.
You seem to think that because
some tiny percentage of the population is born with aberrant or
ambiguous sexual function and/or appearance, that no standard of
normalcy is possible.
No, idiot. Your "standard" is nothing more than your personal
preference. "Normal" is a purely SUBJECTIVE standard.
I have no personal preference, you moron, except to find radical,
irreversable surgery a very serious issue. You're confusing, perhaps
on purpose, behavioral norms with physical normalcy. The concept that
there is no "norm" in human physical development is utter nonsense.
Don't believe me? Open any anatomy book and take a look.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Federal Appeals Court Rejects Demand of "Transsexuals" for Special Rights |
15 Oct 2007 10:27:32 PM |
|
|
Wexford <wryan77@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 14, 2:08 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Wexford <wrya...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 12, 11:00 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Wexford <wrya...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 12, 12:22 am, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Wexford <wrya...@gmail.com> wrote:
No. Google Groups didn't display the question. Be serious -- genitals,
breasts, ovaries, uterus, vagina, testicles, the whole kit.
Then you have a problem with there being more than two sexes. Some
people are born without some of the bits that you require.
No, I don't have a problem with aberrations. I know they occur. Some
people are born with thier backs open. Some people are born with their
arms or legs or both missing or malformed. Some people are born hare-
lipped. It happens. If it's possible to correct the condition or
mitigate it, then fine, by all means do so.
Oh, so now it's "correction" but when YOU don't like it, it's "mutilation".
//////
Nothing like a double-standard, eh?
No, you blithering idiot, it's a single standard. Cutting off a
perferctly formed penis and using its parts to line a cavity created
Oh, so YOU are the Absolute Truth about what is "perfect" and what
needs correction. Got it.
Snipped the response again, I see.
Snipped the self-serving and dishonest rationalization.
Once you state your opinion repeating it doesn't add anything.
I sure as hell know what the sexes
are,
And yet you have been unable to come up with a definitive way of
telling one from the other.
This is interesting. I told you how to distinguish them.
And I told you why your method was crap.
No you didn't.
You're lying. My response is still present above.
You responded
by citing the fact that there are aberrations. I responded by stating
that aberrations don't create the rule.
But you do not have a rule that always works.
No biological rule "always works."
So when you claim to have rules that let you decide which sex a person
should be your are, in fact, badly mistaken.
" The vast majority of people are
born with properly formed, working genitals, and have no problem with
sexual identity.
So what?
That's the rule.
It's an irrelevant fact.
You seem to think that because
some tiny percentage of the population is born with aberrant or
ambiguous sexual function and/or appearance, that no standard of
normalcy is possible.
No, idiot. Your "standard" is nothing more than your personal
preference. "Normal" is a purely SUBJECTIVE standard.
I have no personal preference,
Liar.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "BobR" |
|
| Title: Re: Federal Appeals Court Rejects Demand of "Transsexuals" for Special Rights |
27 Sep 2007 09:41:20 AM |
|
|
On Sep 27, 9:23 am, "Sanders Kaufman" <bu...@kaufman.net> wrote:
"MarkA" <t...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.09.27.12.38.20.729477@nowhere.com...
There is more to gender identity than what does or doesn't hang between
your legs. If the person in question has fully adopted a female identity,
she should be using the female restroom.
Gender is not a psychological trait.
It's a biological one.
The sign on the restroom door does not ask what gender you identify with.
It asks what gender you ARE.
It's not just rude to present yourself as a gender you are not.
It's dishonest.
I just felt the earth shudder...we actually have something that we
agree on.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sanders Kaufman" |
|
| Title: Re: Federal Appeals Court Rejects Demand of "Transsexuals" for Special Rights |
27 Sep 2007 10:11:07 AM |
|
|
"BobR" <reed1@r-a-reed-assoc.com> wrote in message
news:1190904080.561886.192050@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 27, 9:23 am, "Sanders Kaufman" <bu...@kaufman.net> wrote:
It's not just rude to present yourself as a gender you are not.
It's dishonest.
I just felt the earth shudder...we actually have something that we
agree on.
It's *biology* for Christ's sake - what's there to argue about?
You either got a schemegela or a whoop-whoop.
If you're confused - just check your drawers.
The answer is right there.
If we start letting women into the men's room based on what gender they
THINK they are -
should we then let men into mensa based on penis-size?
Is this discrimantory against women with large clitorisi - who are
relatively well hung?
And what about men who *think* with their penis?
To fair things up - should women then be allowed into Mensa based on vagina
size?
It's a slippery slope, indeed.
.
|
|
|
| User: "BobR" |
|
| Title: Re: Federal Appeals Court Rejects Demand of "Transsexuals" for Special Rights |
27 Sep 2007 12:16:03 PM |
|
|
On Sep 27, 10:11 am, "Sanders Kaufman" <bu...@kaufman.net> wrote:
"BobR" <re...@r-a-reed-assoc.com> wrote in message
news:1190904080.561886.192050@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 27, 9:23 am, "Sanders Kaufman" <bu...@kaufman.net> wrote:
It's not just rude to present yourself as a gender you are not.
It's dishonest.
I just felt the earth shudder...we actually have something that we
agree on.
It's *biology* for Christ's sake - what's there to argue about?
You either got a schemegela or a whoop-whoop.
If you're confused - just check your drawers.
The answer is right there.
If we start letting women into the men's room based on what gender they
THINK they are -
should we then let men into mensa based on penis-size?
Is this discrimantory against women with large clitorisi - who are
relatively well hung?
And what about men who *think* with their penis?
To fair things up - should women then be allowed into Mensa based on vagina
size?
It's a slippery slope, indeed.
Hey! Don't get so upset...we agree already! I am just waiting for
the courts to rule that separate bathrooms are unconstitutional. That
can't be far off. <BFG>
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "MarkA" |
|
| Title: Re: Federal Appeals Court Rejects Demand of "Transsexuals" for Special Rights |
27 Sep 2007 04:05:54 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 14:23:28 +0000, Sanders Kaufman wrote:
"MarkA" <toor@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.09.27.12.38.20.729477@nowhere.com...
There is more to gender identity than what does or doesn't hang between
your legs. If the person in question has fully adopted a female identity,
she should be using the female restroom.
Gender is not a psychological trait.
It's a biological one.
The sign on the restroom door does not ask what gender you identify with.
It asks what gender you ARE.
It's not just rude to present yourself as a gender you are not.
It's dishonest.
I was talking about gender identity, not gender. What the sign on the
restroom door is asking is the subject of this debate. It is rude and
dishonest to assume that your biological gender must coincide with your
psychological gender. There are people for whom that is *clearly* not the
case.
--
MarkA
(My OTHER sig line is clever)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sanders Kaufman" |
|
| Title: Re: Federal Appeals Court Rejects Demand of "Transsexuals" for Special Rights |
28 Sep 2007 05:13:09 AM |
|
|
"MarkA" <toor@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.09.27.21.05.52.389823@nowhere.com...
On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 14:23:28 +0000, Sanders Kaufman wrote:
It's not just rude to present yourself as a gender you are not.
It's dishonest.
I was talking about gender identity, not gender. What the sign on the
restroom door is asking is the subject of this debate. It is rude and
dishonest to assume that your biological gender must coincide with your
psychological gender. There are people for whom that is *clearly* not the
case.
Yes - they're called "crazy people" or "perverts".
By your logic, a 50 year old with the mind of a 10-year-old should be able
to boink babies.
.
|
|
|
| User: "MarkA" |
|
| Title: Re: Federal Appeals Court Rejects Demand of "Transsexuals" for Special Rights |
28 Sep 2007 07:07:13 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 05:13:09 -0500, Sanders Kaufman wrote:
"MarkA" <toor@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.09.27.21.05.52.389823@nowhere.com...
On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 14:23:28 +0000, Sanders Kaufman wrote:
It's not just rude to present yourself as a gender you are not.
It's dishonest.
I was talking about gender identity, not gender. What the sign on the
restroom door is asking is the subject of this debate. It is rude and
dishonest to assume that your biological gender must coincide with your
psychological gender. There are people for whom that is *clearly* not the
case.
Yes - they're called "crazy people" or "perverts".
By your logic, a 50 year old with the mind of a 10-year-old should be able
to boink babies.
Yes, and people like you are called "assholes" and "bigots."
--
MarkA
(My OTHER sig line is clever)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sanders Kaufman" |
|
| Title: Re: Federal Appeals Court Rejects Demand of "Transsexuals" for Special Rights |
28 Sep 2007 12:22:55 PM |
|
|
"MarkA" <toor@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.09.28.12.07.11.998682@nowhere.com...
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 05:13:09 -0500, Sanders Kaufman wrote:
Yes - they're called "crazy people" or "perverts".
By your logic, a 50 year old with the mind of a 10-year-old should be
able
to boink babies.
Yes, and people like you are called "assholes" and "bigots."
There's nothing wrong about being bigoted against perverts.
They're dangerous to humans.
.
|
|
|
| User: "MarkA" |
|
| Title: Re: Federal Appeals Court Rejects Demand of "Transsexuals" for Special Rights |
29 Sep 2007 02:08:25 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 12:22:55 -0500, Sanders Kaufman wrote:
"MarkA" <toor@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.09.28.12.07.11.998682@nowhere.com...
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 05:13:09 -0500, Sanders Kaufman wrote:
Yes - they're called "crazy people" or "perverts".
By your logic, a 50 year old with the mind of a 10-year-old should be
able
to boink babies.
Yes, and people like you are called "assholes" and "bigots."
There's nothing wrong about being bigoted against perverts.
They're dangerous to humans.
I can't tolerate intolerance. Sounds funny, but it's true.
--
MarkA
(My OTHER sig line is clever)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sanders Kaufman" |
|
| Title: Re: Federal Appeals Court Rejects Demand of "Transsexuals" for Special Rights |
30 Sep 2007 07:45:40 AM |
|
|
"MarkA" <toor@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.09.29.19.08.24.234745@nowhere.com...
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 12:22:55 -0500, Sanders Kaufman wrote:
There's nothing wrong about being bigoted against perverts.
They're dangerous to humans.
I can't tolerate intolerance. Sounds funny, but it's true.
Funny - no.
Self-contradictory - yes.
I used to be very tolerant of religious freaks and perverts.
Then I saw the damage they do and changed my mind.
.
|
|
|
| User: "MarkA" |
|
| Title: Re: Federal Appeals Court Rejects Demand of "Transsexuals" for Special Rights |
30 Sep 2007 11:04:25 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 12:45:40 +0000, Sanders Kaufman wrote:
"MarkA" <toor@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.09.29.19.08.24.234745@nowhere.com...
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 12:22:55 -0500, Sanders Kaufman wrote:
There's nothing wrong about being bigoted against perverts.
They're dangerous to humans.
I can't tolerate intolerance. Sounds funny, but it's true.
Funny - no.
Self-contradictory - yes.
I used to be very tolerant of religious freaks and perverts.
Then I saw the damage they do and changed my mind.
Perhaps you could explain how a trans-gender person does damage to anyone?
--
MarkA
(My OTHER sig line is clever)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sanders Kaufman" |
|
| Title: Re: Federal Appeals Court Rejects Demand of "Transsexuals" for Special Rights |
30 Sep 2007 05:22:27 PM |
|
|
"MarkA" <toor@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.09.30.16.04.23.886918@nowhere.com...
On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 12:45:40 +0000, Sanders Kaufman wrote:
I used to be very tolerant of religious freaks and perverts.
Then I saw the damage they do and changed my mind.
Perhaps you could explain how a trans-gender person does damage to anyone?
In sociology, one of the first things you learn is that rules that apply on
the individual scale, apply inversely on the grand scale.
You're mixing two contradictory issues - persons and people.
Perverts don't, in general, hurt any one person.
But they do serious damage to society.
It's the same thing with religious zealotry.
Individually, a religious freak is just having fun.
But culturally - they make buildings fall down, and walls go up.
.
|
|
|
| User: "MarkA" |
|
| Title: Re: Federal Appeals Court Rejects Demand of "Transsexuals" for Special Rights |
01 Oct 2007 07:16:26 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 17:22:27 -0500, Sanders Kaufman wrote:
"MarkA" <toor@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.09.30.16.04.23.886918@nowhere.com...
On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 12:45:40 +0000, Sanders Kaufman wrote:
I used to be very tolerant of religious freaks and perverts.
Then I saw the damage they do and changed my mind.
Perhaps you could explain how a trans-gender person does damage to anyone?
In sociology, one of the first things you learn is that rules that apply on
the individual scale, apply inversely on the grand scale.
You're mixing two contradictory issues - persons and people.
Perverts don't, in general, hurt any one person.
But they do serious damage to society.
It's the same thing with religious zealotry.
Individually, a religious freak is just having fun.
But culturally - they make buildings fall down, and walls go up.
I don't see how a 'pervert' can damage society without damaging
individuals. Furthermore, I would argue that the attitude that condemns a
'pervert' that is harming nobody is itself harmful to society. You claim
that you saw what damage 'religious freaks and perverts' do. I am asking
what is the damage to which you refer?
--
MarkA
(My OTHER sig line is clever)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sanders Kaufman" |
|
| Title: Re: Federal Appeals Court Rejects Demand of "Transsexuals" for Special Rights |
01 Oct 2007 06:34:18 PM |
|
|
"MarkA" <toor@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.10.01.12.16.24.349288@nowhere.com...
I don't see how a 'pervert' can damage society without damaging
individuals. Furthermore, I would argue that the attitude that condemns a
'pervert' that is harming nobody is itself harmful to society. You claim
that you saw what damage 'religious freaks and perverts' do. I am asking
what is the damage to which you refer?
Here's one of my favorite arguments on that matter.
A child who grows up in a homosexual household, like a child who grows up in
an abusive household, is never exposed at home to a healthy, happy,
heterosexual lifestyle. They can be TOLD that hetrosexuality is acceptible
or tolerable - but they have no first-hand exposure to such a thing, and
thus can only at best take it as some kind of theoretical truth,
inapplicable to their own young lives.
There's a fundamental truth in families that children take after their
parents - "I want a gal, just like the gal, that married dear old dad".
Thus, a normal child, not otherwise prone to sexual perversions, would be
compelled by their environment to explore such a lifestyle.
This is not a healthy thing for a child, as it steers them away from
becoming family-folks, and into a dark and dangerous lifestyle.
A lot of religions have questioned the meaning of life, but science gives us
the answer.
The purpose of life is to procreate.
Anything that stears young humans away from that, steers them away from
their own humanity.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kelsey Bjarnason" |
|
| Title: Re: Federal Appeals Court Rejects Demand of "Transsexuals" forSpecial Rights |
03 Oct 2007 07:18:55 AM |
|
|
[snips]
On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 23:34:18 +0000, Sanders Kaufman wrote:
A child who grows up in a homosexual household, like a child who grows
up in an abusive household, is never exposed at home to a healthy,
happy, heterosexual lifestyle.
No, but he may well grow up exposed to a healthy, happy, homosexual
lifestyle. Which is the more important aspect - that the parents be
straight, or that they be good, decent, loving, caring people?
For me the answer's pretty clear; I don't give a damn if they're
straight, gay, or bi, or whether there's one, two or twenty of them
involved in the relationship: what matters is who they are, how they
treat each other and the kids.
There does not seem to be any inherent limitation in different gender or
partnering roles that says people in such roles cannot be good, decent,
caring people and treat each other and their kids properly.
They can be TOLD that hetrosexuality is
acceptible or tolerable - but they have no first-hand exposure to such a
thing, and thus can only at best take it as some kind of theoretical
truth, inapplicable to their own young lives.
So your argument, therefore, is that a child can be *told* that
homosexuality is acceptable or tolerable, but they have no first-hand
knowledge of this and thus can only at best take it as some kind of
theoretical truth, inapplicable to their own young lives... and
therefore, we should be actively promoting such relationships.
Yes, well, the argument works equally effectively in both directions, so
it's not really much of an argument for one direction over the other, now
is it?
There's a fundamental truth in families that children take after their
parents - "I want a gal, just like the gal, that married dear old dad".
Except those who don't. I have *very* different traits from my parents
in many areas, particularly as pertain to my choices in partners and
lifestyle.
Thus, a normal child, not otherwise prone to sexual perversions, would
be compelled by their environment to explore such a lifestyle.
Would be compelled to explore heterosexuality, because that's what their
parents do? Yes, well, a strong argument for putting them all in mixed-
role families, then, so they're exposed to all sorts of different roles
to examine. Hmm. By your reasoning, the best possible situation would
be for kids to grow up in families with multiple parents, some gay, some
lesbian, some bi, some straight, some transgendered, so they're not
forced into any single mode of emulation simply by their surroundings.
Okay, well, works for me, but I don't see how this supports your apparent
argument.
This is
not a healthy thing for a child, as it steers them away from becoming
family-folks, and into a dark and dangerous lifestyle.
At worst, if it were actually true, it would steer them into being gay,
which is hardly "a dark and dangerous lifestyle".
A lot of religions have questioned the meaning of life, but science
gives us the answer.
The purpose of life is to procreate.
Err... no, not quite.
Anything that stears young humans away from that, steers them away from
their own humanity.
You've never heard of, say, kin selection, I take it. You might want to
re-examine the issue; it is wholly unnecessary to actually have offspring
of your own to be a net benefit to the gene pool.
--
I know a story of a man in hell wishing he had listened to the Christians
-- J. B. Shaughnessy
I know a story of a man in Oz wishing he had a brain.
-- Richard Smith
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sanders Kaufman" |
|
| Title: Re: Federal Appeals Court Rejects Demand of "Transsexuals" for Special Rights |
03 Oct 2007 08:39:00 AM |
|
|
"Kelsey Bjarnason" <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:fudct4-m3p.ln1@spanky.localhost.net...
On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 23:34:18 +0000, Sanders Kaufman wrote:
A child who grows up in a homosexual household, like a child who grows
up in an abusive household, is never exposed at home to a healthy,
happy, heterosexual lifestyle.
No, but he may well grow up exposed to a healthy, happy, homosexual
lifestyle.
For a race of beings who procreate sexually - that's not a good thing.
The meaning of life is to procreate.
Which is the more important aspect - that the parents be
straight, or that they be good, decent, loving, caring people?
What makes you think it's an either/or situation?
Both are equally important.
For me the answer's pretty clear; I don't give a damn if they're
straight, gay, or bi, or whether there's one, two or twenty of them
involved in the relationship: what matters is who they are, how they
treat each other and the kids.
I used to believe that way.
But then I saw the damage that sexual perversion does to a young mind.
There does not seem to be any inherent limitation in different gender or
partnering roles that says people in such roles cannot be good, decent,
caring people and treat each other and their kids properly.
Yeah - but they can never be a family, and family is all-important.
It's more important than nation, or faith, or anything else.
[continued in next post]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kelsey Bjarnason" |
|
| Title: Re: Federal Appeals Court Rejects Demand of "Transsexuals" forSpecial Rights |
03 Oct 2007 11:08:28 AM |
|
|
[snips]
On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 08:39:00 -0500, Sanders Kaufman wrote:
No, but he may well grow up exposed to a healthy, happy, homosexual
lifestyle.
For a race of beings who procreate sexually - that's not a good thing.
It's perfectly good for many.
The meaning of life is to procreate.
No, it's not. The purpose of life is to _survive_. More to the point,
it is for the _species_ to survive; the individual is largely
irrelevant. Survival of species depends on reproduction, to be sure, but
it does not depend _solely_ on reproduction.
Which is the more important aspect - that the parents be straight, or
that they be good, decent, loving, caring people?
What makes you think it's an either/or situation? Both are equally
important.
Are they? Why? I see no actual benefit to being straight; it's like
being left-handed, who cares, apart from a few closet gays and people who
have nothing better to do with their lives than worry about what someone
else might be doing in the bedroom?
For me the answer's pretty clear; I don't give a damn if they're
straight, gay, or bi, or whether there's one, two or twenty of them
involved in the relationship: what matters is who they are, how they
treat each other and the kids.
I used to believe that way.
But then I saw the damage that sexual perversion does to a young mind.
Odd, then, that you've yet to explain the "perversion" or document the
damge.
There does not seem to be any inherent limitation in different gender
or partnering roles that says people in such roles cannot be good,
decent, caring people and treat each other and their kids properly.
Yeah - but they can never be a family
Says whom? So it's Dad and Dad instead of Mom and Dad, it's still a
family. That it doesn't fit your myopic viewpoint is your problem, not a
problem with the situation.
--
McCullough’s Law: anyone under the control of an authority tends to
be/become inimical to anyone NOT under control of the same authority.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sanders Kaufman" |
|
| Title: Re: Federal Appeals Court Rejects Demand of "Transsexuals" for Special Rights |
05 Oct 2007 10:53:53 AM |
|
|
"Kelsey Bjarnason" <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:scrct4-7o6.ln1@spanky.localhost.net...
On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 08:39:00 -0500, Sanders Kaufman wrote:
For a race of beings who procreate sexually - that's not a good thing.
It's perfectly good for many.
And that's why I originally spoke about the inverse properties of macro v.
micro sociology.
While religious zealotry and sexual perversion may be harmless on an
individual level, it is devastating to society.
The meaning of life is to procreate.
No, it's not. The purpose of life is to _survive_.
If that's your purpose, be prepared for a BIG disappointment.
Nobody gets out of this alive.
I see no actual benefit to being straight; it's like
Survival of the species is one benefit.
There are others.
Yeah - but they can never be a family
Says whom? So it's Dad and Dad instead of Mom and Dad, it's still a
family. That it doesn't fit your myopic viewpoint is your problem, not a
problem with the situation.
Says science.
"Family" has a very specific, genetic definition.
A gay couple may PRETEND to be family.
They may even buy some kids and a house to perpetuate the fantasy.
But they're not.
They're just friends, at best.
Contradicting science in order to conform to a homosexual or religious
agenda is BAD bidness.
..
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Federal Appeals Court Rejects Demand of "Transsexuals" for Special Rights |
05 Oct 2007 11:27:53 AM |
|
|
On 5 okt, 17:53, "Sanders Kaufman" <bu...@kaufman.net> wrote:
"Kelsey Bjarnason" <kbjarna...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:scrct4-7o6.ln1@spanky.localhost.net...
On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 08:39:00 -0500, Sanders Kaufman wrote:
For a race of beings who procreate sexually - that's not a good thing.
It's perfectly good for many.
And that's why I originally spoke about the inverse properties of macro v.
micro sociology.
While religious zealotry and sexual perversion may be harmless on an
individual level, it is devastating to society.
The meaning of life is to procreate.
No, it's not. The purpose of life is to _survive_.
If that's your purpose, be prepared for a BIG disappointment.
Nobody gets out of this alive.
I see no actual benefit to being straight; it's like
Survival of the species is one benefit.
There are others.
Yeah - but they can never be a family
Says whom? So it's Dad and Dad instead of Mom and Dad, it's still a
family. That it doesn't fit your myopic viewpoint is your problem, not a
problem with the situation.
Says science.
"Family" has a very specific, genetic definition.
A gay couple may PRETEND to be family.
They may even buy some kids and a house to perpetuate the fantasy.
But they're not.
They're just friends, at best.
Contradicting science in order to conform to a homosexual or religious
agenda is BAD bidness.
.
Sorry but homosexuality is not damaging society.
If in developped countries the birth-rate has gone down, it is not
because of higher acceptance of homosexuality, but because the verage
births from (straight) women has been lower on average.
Unless you are on to a conspiracy where gays actually flwe the
airplanes twin towers, posing as muslims, you have made an ill-tought
assumption.
Also Religious zealotry can be cery harmfull at a personal level,
especially when the zealot is gay:)
Please rethink,
Peter van Velzen
October 2007
Amstelveen
The Netherlands
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sanders Kaufman" |
|
| Title: Re: Federal Appeals Court Rejects Demand of "Transsexuals" for Special Rights |
06 Oct 2007 05:18:46 PM |
|
|
<pbamvv@worldonline.nl> wrote in message
news:1191601673.477418.206580@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On 5 okt, 17:53, "Sanders Kaufman" <bu...@kaufman.net> wrote:
Contradicting science in order to conform to a homosexual or religious
agenda is BAD bidness.
.
Sorry but homosexuality is not damaging society.
When you deny a thing for no reason, as you did there, it's a clear sign
that your faith as overwhelmed your reason.
It's an irrational way to think - and is painfull common among religious and
sexually perverse cultures.
Notably - such cultures don't often last long.
If in developped countries the birth-rate has gone down, it is not
because of higher acceptance of homosexuality, but because the verage
births from (straight) women has been lower on average.
Nobody claimed otherwise.
Unless you are on to a conspiracy where gays actually flwe the
airplanes twin towers, posing as muslims, you have made an ill-tought
assumption.
Yes - terrorisn is worse than homosexuality.
And that's about the best defense of homosexuality that you'll ever come up
with.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Federal Appeals Court Rejects Demand of "Transsexuals" for Special Rights |
07 Oct 2007 07:56:05 AM |
|
|
On 7 okt, 00:18, "Sanders Kaufman" <bu...@kaufman.net> wrote:
<pba...@worldonline.nl> wrote in message
news:1191601673.477418.206580@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On 5 okt, 17:53, "Sanders Kaufman" <bu...@kaufman.net> wrote:
Contradicting science in order to conform to a homosexual or religious
agenda is BAD bidness.
.
Sorry but homosexuality is not damaging society.
When you deny a thing for no reason, as you did there, it's a clear sign
that your faith as overwhelmed your reason.
It's an irrational way to think - and is painfull common among religious and
sexually perverse cultures.
Notably - such cultures don't often last long.
If in developped countries the birth-rate has gone down, it is not
because of higher acceptance of homosexuality, but because the verage
births from (straight) women has been lower on average.
Nobody claimed otherwise.
Unless you are on to a conspiracy where gays actually flwe the
airplanes twin towers, posing as muslims, you have made an ill-tought
assumption.
Yes - terrorisn is worse than homosexuality.
And that's about the best defense of homosexuality that you'll ever come up
with.
Sorry for my bad spelling, but apart from that, my "defense" of
homosexuality couldn't possibly be better than your "attack". Your
statement that it is devastating to society is wasn't supported by any
argument other then the fact that a society needs a new generation.
I went back up the thread trying to find more, and only ran up to your
presumption that it would be better for children to grow up in a
"normal" family than to be raised by homosexuals. Wether this is true
or false I cannot say. As far as Ik now, no research has been done in
this direction. But even if you were right, the small number of
children being raised by homosexuals couldn't possibly have a
devastating effect on society as a whole.
Indeed in a society where homosexuality is not tolerated and where
most homosexuals therfore would get marrried, much more children would
be raised by - in the closet - homosexuals. Ever thought of that?
To be sure Greek Society where it was custom to have sexual relations
between adult men and adolescent boys thrived a little bit longer than
any present-day democratic republic has done, and it's downfall had
little to do with it's sexual behaviour (according to the books I read
about it). Indeed, although it later came under Roman rule, it was
culturally dominating the empire.
So before you judge my "defence" to be poor,
please supply us by a serious "offense" instead of only displaying
unfounded assumptions.
If you have serious reasons why homosexuality could be devastating to
society, please unveil them. And please try and discriminate between
homsexuals "in the closet" and "out of the closet", and explain which
would be more devastating and why.
By the way, what happened to the original subject; the transsexuals?
Peter van Velzen
October 2007
Amstelveen
The Netherlands
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sanders Kaufman" |
|
| Title: Re: Federal Appeals Court Rejects Demand of "Transsexuals" for Special Rights |
07 Oct 2007 04:31:37 PM |
|
|
<pbamvv@worldonline.nl> wrote in message
news:1191761765.358877.239960@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On 7 okt, 00:18, "Sanders Kaufman" <bu...@kaufman.net> wrote:
Yes - terrorisn is worse than homosexuality.
And that's about the best defense of homosexuality that you'll ever come
up
with.
Sorry for my bad spelling, but apart from that, my "defense" of
homosexuality couldn't possibly be better than your "attack". Your
statement that it is devastating to society is wasn't supported by any
argument other then the fact that a society needs a new generation.
That's a pretty important fact, wouldn't you say?
I went back up the thread trying to find more, and only ran up to your
presumption that it would be better for children to grow up in a
"normal" family than to be raised by homosexuals. Wether this is true
or false I cannot say. As far as Ik now, no research has been done in
this direction. But even if you were right, the small number of
children being raised by homosexuals couldn't possibly have a
devastating effect on society as a whole.
How many children must suffer this way, until you would consider it to be
devastating?
1? 100? A thousand? A million?
Indeed in a society where homosexuality is not tolerated and where
most homosexuals therfore would get marrried, much more children would
be raised by - in the closet - homosexuals. Ever thought of that?
I agree.
That's why I never said that homosexuality should not be tolerated.
To be sure Greek Society where it was custom to have sexual relations
between adult men and adolescent boys thrived a little bit longer than
any present-day democratic republic has done, and it's downfall had
little to do with it's sexual behaviour (according to the books I read
about it). Indeed, although it later came under Roman rule, it was
culturally dominating the empire.
Your argument, that pedophelia is harmless, is a common one.
In fact, we have thousands of prisoners who share it.
If you have serious reasons why homosexuality could be devastating to
society, please unveil them. And please try and discriminate between
homsexuals "in the closet" and "out of the closet", and explain which
would be more devastating and why.
Well I gave one - the need for a next generation.
If you don't think THAT one is a good reason, I don't see how any other
argument would play out any better.
By the way, what happened to the original subject; the transsexuals?
It naturally morphed into one about pervert rights in general.
.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
