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: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Federal Appeals Court Rejects Demand of "Transsexuals" for Special Rights |
27 Sep 2007 09:37:11 AM |
|
|
On Sep 27, 1:25 am, J Young <younginsig...@aol.com> wrote:
Thankfully there are times when common sense wins the day.
Are you a transexual? So why do you care so much about them?
Are they taking anything from you?
Why is it that repressed asexual pseudo-christians always feel
threatened by everyone who isn't like them?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Ejercito" |
|
| Title: Re: Federal Appeals Court Rejects Demand of "Transsexuals" for Special Rights |
27 Sep 2007 12:34:58 PM |
|
|
On Sep 27, 7:37 am, wrote:
On Sep 27, 1:25 am, J Young <younginsig...@aol.com> wrote:
Thankfully there are times when common sense wins the day.
Are you a transexual? So why do you care so much about them?
Are they taking anything from you?
Why is it that repressed asexual pseudo-christians always feel
threatened by everyone who isn't like them?
Going along with their delusions is not helping them.
Should we alter weight scales and mirrors to reinforce the delusion
that anorexics have about being overweight?
Michael
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "BobR" |
|
| Title: Re: Federal Appeals Court Rejects Demand of "Transsexuals" for Special Rights |
27 Sep 2007 12:18:41 PM |
|
|
On Sep 27, 9:37 am, wrote:
On Sep 27, 1:25 am, J Young <younginsig...@aol.com> wrote:
Thankfully there are times when common sense wins the day.
Are you a transexual? So why do you care so much about them?
Are they taking anything from you?
Why is it that repressed asexual pseudo-christians always feel
threatened by everyone who isn't like them?
Sorry Charlie but I really don't want my wife or my daughter being
forced to share the ladies room with some pervert who doesn't know
what gender he is or for that matter some pervert who wants to put on
a dress and hang out in the womens room to satisfy their perverted
desires.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Federal Appeals Court Rejects Demand of "Transsexuals" for Special Rights |
27 Sep 2007 09:51:46 PM |
|
|
BobR <reed1@r-a-reed-assoc.com> wrote:
On Sep 27, 9:37 am, wrote:
On Sep 27, 1:25 am, J Young <younginsig...@aol.com> wrote:
Thankfully there are times when common sense wins the day.
Are you a transexual? So why do you care so much about them?
Are they taking anything from you?
Why is it that repressed asexual pseudo-christians always feel
threatened by everyone who isn't like them?
Sorry Charlie but I really don't want my wife or my daughter being
forced to share the ladies room with some pervert
But they already share a house with a pervert.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Federal Appeals Court Rejects Demand of "Transsexuals" for Special Rights |
27 Sep 2007 10:06:50 PM |
|
|
In article <46fc6c42$0$14147$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, Ray Fischer
<rfischer@sonic.net> wrote:
BobR <reed1@r-a-reed-assoc.com> wrote:
On Sep 27, 9:37 am, wrote:
On Sep 27, 1:25 am, J Young <younginsig...@aol.com> wrote:
Thankfully there are times when common sense wins the day.
Are you a transexual? So why do you care so much about them?
Are they taking anything from you?
Why is it that repressed asexual pseudo-christians always feel
threatened by everyone who isn't like them?
Sorry Charlie but I really don't want my wife or my daughter being
forced to share the ladies room with some pervert
But they already share a house with a pervert.
LOL!!!!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "BobR" |
|
| Title: Re: Federal Appeals Court Rejects Demand of "Transsexuals" for Special Rights |
28 Sep 2007 01:29:56 PM |
|
|
On Sep 27, 9:51 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
BobR <re...@r-a-reed-assoc.com> wrote:
On Sep 27, 9:37 am, wrote:
On Sep 27, 1:25 am, J Young <younginsig...@aol.com> wrote:
Thankfully there are times when common sense wins the day.
Are you a transexual? So why do you care so much about them?
Are they taking anything from you?
Why is it that repressed asexual pseudo-christians always feel
threatened by everyone who isn't like them?
Sorry Charlie but I really don't want my wife or my daughter being
forced to share the ladies room with some pervert
But they already share a house with a pervert.
--
Ray Fischer
So when you have no real argument to support your view your only
response is to revert to name calling. How funny!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Federal Appeals Court Rejects Demand of "Transsexuals" for Special Rights |
28 Sep 2007 11:21:34 PM |
|
|
BobR <reed1@r-a-reed-assoc.com> wrote:
rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
BobR <re...@r-a-reed-assoc.com> wrote:
On Sep 27, 9:37 am, wrote:
On Sep 27, 1:25 am, J Young <younginsig...@aol.com> wrote:
Thankfully there are times when common sense wins the day.
Are you a transexual? So why do you care so much about them?
Are they taking anything from you?
Why is it that repressed asexual pseudo-christians always feel
threatened by everyone who isn't like them?
Sorry Charlie but I really don't want my wife or my daughter being
forced to share the ladies room with some pervert
But they already share a house with a pervert.
So when you have no real argument to support your view
As you're stupid I'll point out that my "argument" was no different
from yours, which was the point.
your only
response is to revert to name calling.
Like calling people "pervert", you bigoted hypocrite?
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "BobR" |
|
| Title: Re: Federal Appeals Court Rejects Demand of "Transsexuals" for Special Rights |
30 Sep 2007 06:07:16 PM |
|
|
On Sep 28, 11:21 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
BobR <re...@r-a-reed-assoc.com> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
BobR <re...@r-a-reed-assoc.com> wrote:
On Sep 27, 9:37 am, wrote:
On Sep 27, 1:25 am, J Young <younginsig...@aol.com> wrote:
Thankfully there are times when common sense wins the day.
Are you a transexual? So why do you care so much about them?
Are they taking anything from you?
Why is it that repressed asexual pseudo-christians always feel
threatened by everyone who isn't like them?
Sorry Charlie but I really don't want my wife or my daughter being
forced to share the ladies room with some pervert
But they already share a house with a pervert.
So when you have no real argument to support your view
As you're stupid I'll point out that my "argument" was no different
from yours, which was the point.
your only
response is to revert to name calling.
Like calling people "pervert", you bigoted hypocrite?
--
Ray Fischer
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Pot-Kettle-Black....
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lisbeth Andersson" |
|
| Title: Re: Federal Appeals Court Rejects Demand of "Transsexuals" for Special Rights |
27 Sep 2007 12:50:33 PM |
|
|
BobR <reed1@r-a-reed-assoc.com> wrote in
news:1190913521.067325.90420@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com:
On Sep 27, 9:37 am, wrote:
On Sep 27, 1:25 am, J Young <younginsig...@aol.com> wrote:
Thankfully there are times when common sense wins the day.
Are you a transexual? So why do you care so much about them?
Are they taking anything from you?
Why is it that repressed asexual pseudo-christians always feel
threatened by everyone who isn't like them?
Sorry Charlie but I really don't want my wife or my daughter
being forced to share the ladies room with some pervert who
doesn't know what gender he is or for that matter some pervert
who wants to put on a dress and hang out in the womens room to
satisfy their perverted desires.
What do you think goes on in womens restrooms? Hint: all of them
contain individual cubicles, with doors that can be locked. You might
think it kinky to watch a woman wash her hands, comb her hair or put
on lipstick, but most people do not regard that as worth noting.
Lisbeth.
----
The day I don't learn anything new is the day I die.
*What we know is not nearly as interesting as *how we know it.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don Martin" |
|
| Title: Re: Federal Appeals Court Rejects Demand of "Transsexuals" for Special Rights |
28 Sep 2007 10:24:50 PM |
|
|
On 27 Sep 2007 17:50:33 GMT, Lisbeth Andersson <lisand@bredband.net> wrote:
Sorry Charlie but I really don't want my wife or my daughter
being forced to share the ladies room with some pervert who
doesn't know what gender he is or for that matter some pervert
who wants to put on a dress and hang out in the womens room to
satisfy their perverted desires.
What do you think goes on in womens restrooms? Hint: all of them
contain individual cubicles, with doors that can be locked. You might
think it kinky to watch a woman wash her hands, comb her hair or put
on lipstick, but most people do not regard that as worth noting.
What _I_ regard as worth noting are the women who put on eye liner while riding
the DC Metro without skewering their eyeballs. I watch with a morbid
fascination. One of these days . . . . .
WOA (Wicked Old Atheist) #2278
If you can't be a dirty old man, what is the point of being an old man?
Through a jaundiced eye darkly--rheum with a view.
The Squeeky Wheel
http://home.comcast.net/~drdonmartin/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lisbeth Andersson" |
|
| Title: Re: Federal Appeals Court Rejects Demand of "Transsexuals" for Special Rights |
30 Sep 2007 10:02:54 AM |
|
|
Don Martin <drdonmartin@comcast.net> wrote in
news:q8hrf3tt4hk62rfsi918et51hbm8ec2s52@4ax.com:
On 27 Sep 2007 17:50:33 GMT, Lisbeth Andersson
<lisand@bredband.net> wrote:
Sorry Charlie but I really don't want my wife or my daughter
being forced to share the ladies room with some pervert who
doesn't know what gender he is or for that matter some pervert
who wants to put on a dress and hang out in the womens room to
satisfy their perverted desires.
What do you think goes on in womens restrooms? Hint: all of them
contain individual cubicles, with doors that can be locked. You
might think it kinky to watch a woman wash her hands, comb her
hair or put on lipstick, but most people do not regard that as
worth noting.
What _I_ regard as worth noting are the women who put on eye
liner while riding the DC Metro without skewering their eyeballs.
I watch with a morbid fascination. One of these days . . . . .
Yes, you are wicked. :-) I hope you have better ways of being dirty
though.
Lisbeth.
----
The day I don't learn anything new is the day I die.
*What we know is not nearly as interesting as *how we know it.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don Martin" |
|
| Title: Re: Federal Appeals Court Rejects Demand of "Transsexuals" for Special Rights |
30 Sep 2007 12:52:56 PM |
|
|
On 30 Sep 2007 15:02:54 GMT, Lisbeth Andersson <lisand@bredband.net> wrote:
Don Martin <drdonmartin@comcast.net> wrote in
news:q8hrf3tt4hk62rfsi918et51hbm8ec2s52@4ax.com:
On 27 Sep 2007 17:50:33 GMT, Lisbeth Andersson
<lisand@bredband.net> wrote:
Sorry Charlie but I really don't want my wife or my daughter
being forced to share the ladies room with some pervert who
doesn't know what gender he is or for that matter some pervert
who wants to put on a dress and hang out in the womens room to
satisfy their perverted desires.
What do you think goes on in womens restrooms? Hint: all of them
contain individual cubicles, with doors that can be locked. You
might think it kinky to watch a woman wash her hands, comb her
hair or put on lipstick, but most people do not regard that as
worth noting.
What _I_ regard as worth noting are the women who put on eye
liner while riding the DC Metro without skewering their eyeballs.
I watch with a morbid fascination. One of these days . . . . .
Yes, you are wicked. :-) I hope you have better ways of being dirty
though.
Planning on it. Lacking for suitable subjects at the moment, but I have my
hopes.
WOA (Wicked Old Atheist) #2278
If you can't be a dirty old man, what is the point of being an old man?
Through a jaundiced eye darkly--rheum with a view.
The Squeeky Wheel
http://home.comcast.net/~drdonmartin/
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "MarkA" |
|
| Title: Re: Federal Appeals Court Rejects Demand of "Transsexuals" for Special Rights |
29 Sep 2007 02:10:51 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 17:50:33 +0000, Lisbeth Andersson wrote:
BobR <reed1@r-a-reed-assoc.com> wrote in
news:1190913521.067325.90420@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com:
On Sep 27, 9:37 am, wrote:
On Sep 27, 1:25 am, J Young <younginsig...@aol.com> wrote:
Thankfully there are times when common sense wins the day.
Are you a transexual? So why do you care so much about them?
Are they taking anything from you?
Why is it that repressed asexual pseudo-christians always feel
threatened by everyone who isn't like them?
Sorry Charlie but I really don't want my wife or my daughter
being forced to share the ladies room with some pervert who
doesn't know what gender he is or for that matter some pervert
who wants to put on a dress and hang out in the womens room to
satisfy their perverted desires.
What do you think goes on in womens restrooms? Hint: all of them
contain individual cubicles, with doors that can be locked. You might
think it kinky to watch a woman wash her hands, comb her hair or put
on lipstick, but most people do not regard that as worth noting.
My suspicion is that if the other, female employees didn't already now
that she was trans-gender, they would never find out by her use of the
female restroom.
--
MarkA
(My OTHER sig line is clever)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lisbeth Andersson" |
|
| Title: Re: Federal Appeals Court Rejects Demand of "Transsexuals" for Special Rights |
30 Sep 2007 10:01:41 AM |
|
|
MarkA <toor@nowhere.com> wrote in
news:pan.2007.09.29.19.10.49.963051@nowhere.com:
On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 17:50:33 +0000, Lisbeth Andersson wrote:
What do you think goes on in womens restrooms? Hint: all of them
contain individual cubicles, with doors that can be locked. You
might think it kinky to watch a woman wash her hands, comb her
hair or put on lipstick, but most people do not regard that as
worth noting.
My suspicion is that if the other, female employees didn't
already now that she was trans-gender, they would never find out
by her use of the female restroom.
Well, there is that "is the seat up or down?" issue. Is the true test
of a female trans-gender that she leaves the seat down. :-) Or at
least is intelligent enough to put it down afterwards.
Since I'm just kidding I'm trimming tx.politics from the sendlist.
Lisbeth.
----
The day I don't learn anything new is the day I die.
*What we know is not nearly as interesting as *how we know it.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Martin" |
|
| Title: Re: Federal Appeals Court Rejects Demand of "Transsexuals" for SpecialRights |
27 Sep 2007 01:37:40 PM |
|
|
BobR wrote:
On Sep 27, 9:37 am, wrote:
On Sep 27, 1:25 am, J Young <younginsig...@aol.com> wrote:
Thankfully there are times when common sense wins the day.
Are you a transexual? So why do you care so much about them?
Are they taking anything from you?
Why is it that repressed asexual pseudo-christians always feel
threatened by everyone who isn't like them?
Sorry Charlie but I really don't want my wife or my daughter being
forced to share the ladies room with some pervert who doesn't know
what gender he is or for that matter some pervert who wants to put on
a dress and hang out in the womens room to satisfy their perverted
desires.
Best not to let them visit Europe then, I hope you keep away yourself too
.
|
|
|
| User: "BobR" |
|
| Title: Re: Federal Appeals Court Rejects Demand of "Transsexuals" for Special Rights |
27 Sep 2007 03:17:50 PM |
|
|
On Sep 27, 1:37 pm, Martin <usen...@etiqa.co.uk> wrote:
BobR wrote:
On Sep 27, 9:37 am, wrote:
On Sep 27, 1:25 am, J Young <younginsig...@aol.com> wrote:
Thankfully there are times when common sense wins the day.
Are you a transexual? So why do you care so much about them?
Are they taking anything from you?
Why is it that repressed asexual pseudo-christians always feel
threatened by everyone who isn't like them?
Sorry Charlie but I really don't want my wife or my daughter being
forced to share the ladies room with some pervert who doesn't know
what gender he is or for that matter some pervert who wants to put on
a dress and hang out in the womens room to satisfy their perverted
desires.
Best not to let them visit Europe then, I hope you keep away yourself too- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I don't have a problem with that. I have no great desire to visit
Europe again.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bibon" |
|
| Title: Re: Federal Appeals Court Rejects Demand of "Transsexuals" for Special Rights |
27 Sep 2007 12:42:51 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 22:25:47 -0700, J Young <younginsights@aol.com>
wrote:
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.
One of the treatment for prostate cancer involves the injection of
"female hormones" but I don't think it gives one receiving the
injections the right to ***** in the female rest room, no matter how
much jewelry and lipstick you wear.
A copy of Thursday's ruling in Etsitty v. Utah Transit Authority can
be read at http://www.telladf.org/UserDocs/UTADecision.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "MarkA" |
|
| Title: Re: Federal Appeals Court Rejects Demand of "Transsexuals" for Special Rights |
27 Sep 2007 07:38:24 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 05:42:51 +0000, Bibon wrote:
On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 22:25:47 -0700, J Young <younginsights@aol.com>
wrote:
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.
One of the treatment for prostate cancer involves the injection of
"female hormones" but I don't think it gives one receiving the
injections the right to ***** in the female rest room, no matter how
much jewelry and lipstick you wear.
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.
A copy of Thursday's ruling in Etsitty v. Utah Transit Authority can
be read at http://www.telladf.org/UserDocs/UTADecision.pdf
--
MarkA
(My OTHER sig line is clever)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sanders Kaufman" |
|
| Title: Re: Federal Appeals Court Rejects Demand of "Transsexuals" for Special Rights |
27 Sep 2007 09:23:28 AM |
|
|
"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.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lars Eighner" |
|
| Title: Re: Federal Appeals Court Rejects Demand of "Transsexuals" for Special Rights |
27 Sep 2007 09:46:43 AM |
|
|
In our last episode,
<A1PKi.9172$JD.626@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net>,
the lovely and talented Sanders Kaufman
broadcast on tx.politics:
"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.
Exactly backwards. Sex is a biological trait. Gender is a social and
psychological construct.
--
Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> <http://myspace.com/larseighner>
Countdown: 481 days to go.
What do you do when you're debranded?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wexford" |
|
| Title: Re: Federal Appeals Court Rejects Demand of "Transsexuals" for Special Rights |
10 Oct 2007 11:59:46 AM |
|
|
On Sep 27, 10:46 am, Lars Eighner <use...@larseighner.com> wrote:
In our last episode,
<A1PKi.9172$JD....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net>,
the lovely and talented Sanders Kaufman
broadcast on tx.politics:
"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.
Exactly backwards. Sex is a biological trait. Gender is a social and
psychological construct.
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. "Sex change" operations don't change sex. They mutilate
the organs and make the parts look as if they belong to the opposite
sex. 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.
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. The complete treatment
costs an enormous amount of money and doesn't really do all it's
billed to do. The result is often not very satisfactory. As one
transsexual moaned, "I was once a depressed man, now I'm an ugly aging
woman."
As for the "rights" of transsexuals in the early stages of the change
process to use the bathroom of the opposite sex, I'm sorry, but I have
no sympathy for them. If the individual still has a penis, he should
be pissing in the men's room, whatever his sexual pretensions. As long
as he has a penis, he shouldn't be going around disguised as a woman
anyway.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Federal Appeals Court Rejects Demand of "Transsexuals" for Special Rights |
10 Oct 2007 12:47:37 PM |
|
|
Wexford <wryan77@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 27, 10:46 am, Lars Eighner <use...@larseighner.com> wrote:
In our last episode,
<A1PKi.9172$JD....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net>,
the lovely and talented Sanders Kaufman
broadcast on tx.politics:
"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.
Exactly backwards. Sex is a biological trait. Gender is a social and
psychological construct.
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?
"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.
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?
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?
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wexford" |
|
| Title: Re: Federal Appeals Court Rejects Demand of "Transsexuals" for Special Rights |
10 Oct 2007 03:21:26 PM |
|
|
On Oct 10, 1:47 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Wexford <wrya...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 27, 10:46 am, Lars Eighner <use...@larseighner.com> wrote:
In our last episode,
<A1PKi.9172$JD....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net>,
the lovely and talented Sanders Kaufman
broadcast on tx.politics:
"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.
Exactly backwards. Sex is a biological trait. Gender is a social and
psychological construct.
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?
"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. You cannot change someone's sex, not as the currently
exists anyway. All you can do is mutilate organs and create the
appreance of sexual change. Hacking off a man's penis and testicals
and creating an artificial cavity that resembles a vagina is not
changing sex, nor is closing a vagina and hanging a prostectic penis
and fake testicles.
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. A man's brests may get a bit fleshy from
massive hormone injections, but his hips don't acquire the female
spread, and most, if not all, of the other many, many differences in
body structure between males and females do not change. His feet won't
get smaller. He won't lose his Adam's apple. His shoulders and hands
won't shrink, etc.
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. I'm not stating it as fact, merely
my observation. Since you asked, I have a gradute degree in psychology
that I earned a long time ago, and which I've found to be utterly
useless in private or professional life. Even if I were dirt ignorant
of psychology or medicine, it wouldn't necessarily make me wrong,
however. One doesn't have to be a cheesemaker to know the difference
bewteen Swiss and creamcheese.
The issue isn't about medicine or psychology anyway. I'm not disputing
the fact that cosmetic mutilation performed by a competent surgeon is
effective in creating the appearance of sexual change (at least as far
as private parts go). I'm disputing its necessity and the wisdom of
doing it. In my opinion, the small industry that caters to
transsexuals is filled with medical predators that exploit the sadness
and confusion of people who think they're trapped in the wrong sex.
Furthermore, I think that mutilating people is "doing harm" and is in
violation of the Hyppocratic Oath. My opion. I'm in good company on
this. Johns Hopkins at one time pioneered the procedures in the United
States and is now steadfastly against them.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sanders Kaufman" |
|
| Title: Re: Federal Appeals Court Rejects Demand of "Transsexuals" for Special Rights |
10 Oct 2007 03:34:48 PM |
|
|
"Wexford" <wryan77@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1192047686.357522.277550@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 10, 1:47 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
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
There's no need for such a complex answer.
DNA analysis can identify the gender of a human, even when the human cannot.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lars Eighner" |
|
| Title: Re: Federal Appeals Court Rejects Demand of "Transsexuals" for Special Rights |
10 Oct 2007 04:35:44 PM |
|
|
In our last episode, <DHaPi.7776$6p6.473@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>, the
lovely and talented Sanders Kaufman broadcast on tx.politics:
"Wexford" <wryan77@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1192047686.357522.277550@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 10, 1:47 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
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
There's no need for such a complex answer.
DNA analysis can identify the gender of a human, even when the human cannot.
No, once again, DNA can tell you nothing about gender. You meant to claim
that DNA can tell a person's sex. Even this is a little fuzzy around the
edges. Generally the presence of at least one Y chromosome is take as
evidence of being genetically male and the absence of Y chromosome(s) is
taken as evidence of being genetically female. However, this is not always
in accord with the appearance of the genitalia and their apparent
functionality, secondary sexual characteristics, relative occurrence of
sex-related hormones, etc.
--
Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> <http://myspace.com/larseighner>
Countdown: 467 days to go.
What do you do when you're debranded?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sanders Kaufman" |
|
| Title: Re: Federal Appeals Court Rejects Demand of "Transsexuals" for Special Rights |
10 Oct 2007 06:07:39 PM |
|
|
"Lars Eighner" <usenet@larseighner.com> wrote in message
news:slrnfgqhbk.2ku.usenet@debranded.larseighner.com...
In our last episode, <DHaPi.7776$6p6.473@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>, the
lovely and talented Sanders Kaufman broadcast on tx.politics:
DNA analysis can identify the gender of a human, even when the human
cannot.
No, once again, DNA can tell you nothing about gender. You meant to claim
that DNA can tell a person's sex.
No - sex is a verb; gender is a noun.
What you're doing here is very common.
You're trying to redefine the English language to suit your political
agenda.
It's dishonest, and kinda disgusting.
But that's the kind of people you are.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lars Eighner" |
|
| Title: Re: Federal Appeals Court Rejects Demand of "Transsexuals" for Special Rights |
10 Oct 2007 06:37:54 PM |
|
|
In our last episode, <_XcPi.4058$y21.2703@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net>, the
lovely and talented Sanders Kaufman broadcast on tx.politics:
"Lars Eighner" <usenet@larseighner.com> wrote in message
news:slrnfgqhbk.2ku.usenet@debranded.larseighner.com...
In our last episode, <DHaPi.7776$6p6.473@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>, the
lovely and talented Sanders Kaufman broadcast on tx.politics:
DNA analysis can identify the gender of a human, even when the human
cannot.
No, once again, DNA can tell you nothing about gender. You meant to claim
that DNA can tell a person's sex.
No - sex is a verb; gender is a noun.
You are wrong, as consulting any dictionary will reveal.
"Sex" has been an English noun since the 14th century. It did not show up
as a verb until 1884. "Gender" has been both a verb and a noun since the
14th century, but the noun referred to linguistic classifications of nouns
(which in European languages do sometimes have a vague and tenuous
connection to sex, but in many other languages have no such connection)
until the Victorians who were to precious to pronouce the word "sex" began
to use "gender" as a euphemism. It is the use of it as a substitute for the
word "sex" to which purists usually object. As a technical term for
'behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one
sex' (Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition) few pedants
object, for it presents a useful distinction.
What you're doing here is very common.
You're trying to redefine the English language to suit your political
agenda.
It's dishonest, and kinda disgusting.
But that's the kind of people you are.
--
Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> <http://myspace.com/larseighner>
Countdown: 467 days to go.
What do you do when you're debranded?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kelsey Bjarnason" |
|
| Title: Re: Federal Appeals Court Rejects Demand of "Transsexuals" forSpecial Rights |
14 Oct 2007 02:58:41 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 18:07:39 -0500, Sanders Kaufman wrote:
"Lars Eighner" <usenet@larseighner.com> wrote in message
news:slrnfgqhbk.2ku.usenet@debranded.larseighner.com...
In our last episode, <DHaPi.7776$6p6.473@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>, the
lovely and talented Sanders Kaufman broadcast on tx.politics:
DNA analysis can identify the gender of a human, even when the human
cannot.
No, once again, DNA can tell you nothing about gender. You meant to
claim that DNA can tell a person's sex.
No - sex is a verb; gender is a noun.
Actually, gender relates to the grammatical categorization of words; in
French, "table" has a feminine gender, but the table has no sex at all.
Sex, by contrast, is used to refer to the male or female status of a
living thing.
What you're doing here is very
common. You're trying to redefine the English language to suit your
political agenda.
Actually, no. The use of "gender" where "sex" is appropriate is nothing
but a euphemism; attempting to treat it otherwise is to do just what you
assert he's doing.
It's dishonest, and kinda disgusting.
So don't do it.
--
S.G.A. BBS in Batesville, Arkansas is not carrying this echo.
We look forward to some very interesting discussions. -- Gary Isaac
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kelsey Bjarnason" |
|
| Title: Re: Federal Appeals Court Rejects Demand of "Transsexuals" forSpecial Rights |
14 Oct 2007 03:03:39 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 20:34:48 +0000, Sanders Kaufman wrote:
"Wexford" <wryan77@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1192047686.357522.277550@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 10, 1:47 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
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
There's no need for such a complex answer.
DNA analysis can identify the gender of a human, even when the human cannot.
So when a person is born with a Y chromosome and is thus genetically male,
yet is immune to testosterone and thus develops female secondary sex
traits - breasts, female external genitalia and the rest - without any of
the male secondary sex traits such as facial hair... are they male or
female?
Genetically, they're male. To look at, they're female. Emotionally,
mentally, physically, hormonally, socially, they're female.
To call them "male" because of a quirk of their genetic makeup seems a
little silly.
--
How about informing us then what the Muslim view of sex is? -- Steve B.
That depends upon whether the camel is standing or sitting down. -- Fred R.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Federal Appeals Court Rejects Demand of "Transsexuals" for Special Rights |
10 Oct 2007 10:51:19 PM |
|
|
Sanders Kaufman <bucky@kaufman.net> wrote:
"Wexford" <wryan77@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1192047686.357522.277550@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 10, 1:47 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
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
There's no need for such a complex answer.
DNA analysis can identify the gender of a human, even when the human cannot.
No it cannot. What sex is a person with a single X chromosome? What
sex is a person who is genetically male but, because of insensivity to
male hormones, ends up physiologically female?
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
