Printable View
I would think that if it was a gene found they would more likely curb it rather find use for it..Just as they would with any birth defect..Quote:
Originally Posted by AmandaM
Hitler still lives amoung us ,a perfect human is societys idea of the future.
Oh and further on biological causation of CDing as I argue in my blogpost on the sbuject http://caveofrationality.blogspot.co...causation.html
Science doesn't work by proof but by constructing falsifiable hyptheses and then testing them and being unable to disprove them. My post was in response to a discussion at Zoe's blog here http://aebrain.blogspot.com/2009/05/...e-you-are.html in which the following public comment was left, (emphasis with bold added by me for this post) make of it what you will...
And by all means folks, follow it up. I dont mind being disproven, science learns new things all the time many that don't follow predictions.Quote:
riki said...
I am doing a PhD on the political and social implications of the brain sex theory of trans. My assessment is that there is certainly more evidence for that theory than for any other, but that it is far from "proven", and that many biological hypotheses have been falsified on the past (EG the HY antigen in the 70s and 80s). The psychological theories have very little evidence to support them.
I interviewed Dick Swaab, whose lab produced the BSTc research that is the strongest evidence for a neurological correlate for trans. It should be noted that one of the six MTF transsexual people in the original 1995 Zhou study had never transitioned, but insisted that they had a female gender identity. It sould also be noted that the 2002 Chung study found that the difference between males and females in the BSTc does not occur until after puberty, which poses some problems for a pre or early post natal hormonal causation theory.
Swaab thinks the BSTc is probably a part of a network in the brain involving the hypothalaumus and cortical areas.
"We only, by accident, hit on a little bit of it"
He also explicitly supported the idea that there is a biological causation for the whole range of gender identity variations:
"I think we talked about a scale like the Kinsey scale for sexual orientation – we should also have a gender identity scale. It is not either this or that; there is also something in between. The distribution will not be simple, but here will be people somewhere in the middle."
"So it is not the entire brain that is switching, it is some systems, and that may also be the explanation for the [gender identity] scale. Some systems do switch and others don’t and it depends on which systems have switched where you enter on the scale."
Other recent research (as reviewed by Zoe in earlier blogs) also supports the idea of certain sex differentiated brain areas being switched in ts or tg people while others are not.
So if that is the opinion of Swaab, perhaps the best qualified scientific researcher in the field, perhaps we can accept that tg is as likely to be biological as ts?
But for choices we make right now we must act on the evidence and probabilities available right now so my points based on this research remain valid not till there is definitive proof (as science doesn't even work that way! Those in doubt look up naturalistic methodology or any textbook on philosophy of science) but until there is disproof.
Never mind. Won't matter what I think anyway. If you choose to continue picking me apart, by all means have at it.
I'm not picking anyone apart.Quote:
Originally Posted by letsdance GG
I'm not attacking anyone.
I'm just raising important questions.
Only slight variations of the hard questions the Suffragettes asked each other that led to women getting the vote, only slight varaitions of those that feminists asked themselves that led to women gaining near-equality, that African Americans asked each other that led to desegregation and the current presidency, the same questions that gays asked themselves that led to their being decades ahead of us!
Some questions have painful answers. But hiding our heads in the sand just passes the buck and makes others suffer for our inability to ask and answer hard questions. And some of those painful answere lead to less pain in the future. And if you look at my actual points like the one above where I say many shouldn't yet come out because of risks to jobs but instead fight for ENDA from the closet to protect against accidental outting you'll see i'm not saying what everyone keeps reading into my posts thats not actually there!
I'm not saying anyone did the wrong thing to their children. I already said I'm sure people made the best decisions they could with the knowledge and ideas at hand. I'm just saying we need to consider these questions, all of us, and that the answers may take years to implement but that we need to start now... gradually!
I think we've been avoiding these questions for fear of discomfort or painful truth. If these questions lead to truth that however painful leads to progress maybe thats the most important honesty we have to deal with that we are hiding from.
It's better to pull a rotten tooth than die of blood poisoning, pain often goes hand in hand with growth and healling.
Batty, I think the acceptance of TG's in world society is in shades of gray and a black and white approach to it is not useful in all contexts.
I don't think my approach is black and white, especially when my personal view is expressed that those married CDs without workplace protection should probably work within the closet for that rather than come out.Quote:
Originally Posted by AmandaM
And I'm not suggesting lesser-of-two-evils approaches are invalid. But my points do suggest that the short-term lesser of evils may well be for many the long-term greater and vice versa.
By all means look at the point-form versions of some of the questions i posed and we can discuss the relativist perspectives on them.
We needn't take just one approach on these ideas. By all means lets examine those shades of gray :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by battybattybats
I'm not sure why you went to such lengths to confirm in your last setence what you started out by saying 'few would dispute', in your first sentence.
Between the two are a lot of suppositions that don't necessarily or logically support it. (ie: social & career suicide)
What would be accomplished by my SO exposing any skeleton's they may have. Some kind of perverse solidarity so we can sink or swim together? Both without jobs?
... for the sake of brevity.
Responsibility- We are responsible to ourselves alone. More than that is dictated by personal belief, integrity, ethic and circumstance. And no two people have the same circumstances.
Conversely, 'I am my brothers (sister's) keeper' and should do what is right. But again, what is right is dictated by personal belief and circumstance, of which no two are the same.
It is not someone else's responsibility to fight my battles. If they believe my cause is just, I would expect them to step up, but it's their decision. So no, SO's do not have a responsibility to strive for tg rights. They have a responsilility to be true to what they believe is right. I'm the one that put on the heels, so I'll walk in them. Others will follow and support because they believe in me. If my SO doesn't believe in me I've got bigger problems than gender acceptance.
So, I agree when you first said 'a cd should be honest early on' and I agree in your conclusion that 'CDs should be honest with their partners'. I don't agree with the logic connecting the two.
P.S. ... Do you realize you've written 3039 posts since you joined. That's amazing. That's like, 84 posts a month, or almost three posts a day, every day, seven days a week for three years. Incredible.
No, I don't think we can say the CD'er should come out at all times.Quote:
Of course theres a lot of things that make a circumstance not ideal
that many discuss here a lot already.. self-acceptance, the trust involved
in coming out early, the risk of being outted publicly, fear of burdening the
family etc. But I think it's worth considering the broader issue.
If we say a CD should come out to their partner early, despite the dangers
to the relationship, family, job, career etc...
Then shouldn't the CD also be honest to everyone? Shouldn't they be honest
to Parents, children, siblings, cousins, workmates and on to cover everyone?
Certainly some of these relationships are more important than others but shouldn't
CDs be honest in all of them?
No, you link the first argument to this one. If a CD comes out, then that doesn'tQuote:
Shouldn't SO's? Shouldn't they risk their families, their friendships,
their jobs even by being open about being in a rlationship with a CD (as well
as any skeletons in their own closets)? Essentially if a SO thinks a CD should
confess they are a CD despite the risk of others judgement should not the SO be
willing to eqaullly share that burden?
necessarily require a GG to also. This is highly dependent on individual life
circumstances.
You have linked the second argument to the first to justify a perceived hypocrisy.Quote:
But this drives me to a far stronger conclusion than simply avoiding hypocracy.
If an SO thinks that CDs should come out early, do they not have a responsibility
to make it easier for all CDs to do so?
There is no justification, still. And an SO can only make it easier if they are
seeking out CD'ers as partners. Else, it's just an intellectual exercise.
No, even if SO's actively seek CD'ers, they do not have a responsibility toQuote:
So if an SO thinks CDs should be out to them from the outset don't they have a
responsibility for working towards transgender civil rights and social
acceptance? The very things that would protect their partners job but also make
it easier for future CDs to come out to their partners and at least make things
easier on the next generation?
forward any cause. You are linking this third argument to the first two trying
to create an ascending responsibility chain. Yet, there is no substance to your
attempt. You state only assumptive conclusions.
There is no substantive evidence that the children of CD's will become CD's.Quote:
And then I consider the evidence that there is a genetic aspect to being
transsexual and that the scientists behind many of these discoveries think
this will be true for all forms of transgender. Which means that the children
of CDs will have a greater chance of being CD/TS...
So then don't SOs have a responsibility to strive for TG rights and acceptance
for their childrens or grandchildrens sakes?
This seems to me the consequences of concluding that CDs should be honest
with their partners. What do you think?
Therefore, this fourth argument in your escalating responsibility chain is
also not valid. It is still all supposition. You did not logically link the
right of a GG to know her man is a CD to any of your latter arguments. This is
only an argumentative essay designed to force people to think. But, in your efforts,
it has backfired. Instead of thinking about this subject, all their thinking about
is that you are a boob. (pun intended, lol).
but I feel I need to say a few things. I certainly don't wish to argue these previous points that have been beaten to death.
First of all, I think we need to look back at any civil rights or human rights movement and recognize that not everyone who would benefit would be either in a) a position to be able to make a difference , nor b) have the courage to make a difference or c) even believe that the movement was right for them. For example, there are still women that believe that they should not have equal rights with men, and therefore would never stand up for women's rights. You are not going to get everyone on board to join in a crusade to help with transgender rights.
Second, there has to be a tipping point. That is, when more than just a few cross-dressers and their SO's are out fighting for understanding. This means cisgened people (like friends, neighbors and extended family) will have to be supportive. How does this happen? By those of us that can come out, to slowly and with some sort of decorum come out to those we can. Not by being in your face on Jerry Springer or arguing with some shock jock. I say be honest when you can, but certainly use some sense as to what you may be sacrificing when you do. Again, as in my first point, this is not for everyone.
Third, and I wish I could remember who said this, but "What if every person in the world that is LGBT were to suddenly turn green?" I think if this were to happen, honesty would not be a factor at all. So this is crux of both gender identity and sexual orientation conundrum. We are not automatically visible like it is for women and racial issues. We can hide.
So yes this is a conundrum, a puzzle, a problem having only a conjectural answer. It's a classic chicken and egg problem, what comes first acceptance or visibility?
I believe the only thing we can wish for is a cascading type process. One person will come out, which will allow another and another, and eventually, cisgened people that are our allies will out number those that are not. And CD's that haven't been convinced that TG rights are worth fighting for will be able to join in when they can.
:2c: Tracy :2c:
Because they are two different points. The first sentence says:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mary Jane1
"I think few would dispute that in an ideal circumstance a CD should be honest about their CDing early on." And then sentences mention "a lot of things that make a circumstance not ideal". While the last sentence "the consequences of concluding that CDs should be honest with their partners"
The last sentence refers to people saying that a CD NEEDS TO be out to their partner no matter what and what that means for them too, that in expecting the CD to out themselves from the start at great risk doesnt that mean they have an obligation to be willing to take such risks themselves.
Does that explain it better?
Virtue. Lack of hypocracy. Integrity. But the IFs are crucial.Quote:
What would be accomplished by my SO exposing any skeleton's they may have. Some kind of perverse solidarity so we can sink or swim together? Both without jobs?
We aren't crocodiles. We are a social animal with each member gaining benefit from that, like a pack, a herd, a swarm, a flock. Not only does the UN decleration of human rights recognise this but so do the majority of philosophers throughout history. See: State of Nature and Social Contract Also Rawl's Veil of Ignorance.Quote:
Responsibility- We are responsible to ourselves alone.
What about responsibility to ones own underage children for example?
Consider, if a child is drowning before you and you can swim well and they cannot and you dont save them you killed them by will. By choice of inaction. How can someone make a choice and yet not be responsible for the predictable consequences of that choice?
Wow. I hadn't noticed.Quote:
P.S. ... Do you realize you've written 3039 posts since you joined. That's amazing. That's like, 84 posts a month, or almost three posts a day, every day, seven days a week for three years. Incredible.
Crucial difference. I'm referring to IF the GG thinks the CD MUST or SHOULD be out, not IF the CD merely decides to.Quote:
Originally Posted by AmandaM
There doesn't need to be, just the implication that there is or may be a greater chance which the finding of a TS correlate gene does all on it's own until dissproven. Besides even without a TG gene if TGs are 1% of the population they have a 1 in 100 chance each child of theirs will be TG even if by a non-TG father, if TG's are 10% a 1 in 10! The breast cancer gene increases the breast cancer risk by 10% iirc. So there is always a chance a child, grandchild, nephew, cousin etc will be TG.Quote:
There is no substantive evidence that the children of CD's will become CD's.
well i guess this means that the arguement over whether a GG being honest over her CDing partner and his CDing being the cause of the seperation (if they decide to split) mutes any of the old arguemnets about it being against his privacy:straightface::eek:
Nope.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheila
As the concepts are, if correct:
IF a CD SHOULD be honest from the start with one relationship THEN unless there is a KEY difference (which some say there is!) the CD should come out to other relationships like parents, siblings and children etc.
That doesn't mean the GG gets to out them after a split.
And IF a GG thinks a CD SHOULD risk all relationships and livelihood by trusting the GG from the start with potentially damaging information THEN the GG SHOULD also be willing to suffer the same risk.
That doesn't mean they have to be out, only apply the same standards of risk to themselves that they demand from their partner.
And IF a GG thinks a CD SHOULD be open from the start AS ITP and ETP are the main if not only cause of their hiding THEN the GG SHOULD make it easier for other CDs to be open to other GGs from the start by fighting ITP by raising acceptance whatever way is appropriate and ETP by fighting discrimination like the risk of job-loss which helps their family and others too.
Just outting their partner especially after a split is not doing that really.
And AS any child could be TG AND there may be a genetic inheritable increased chance THEN fighting ITP and ETP is also protecting ones own children.
Again outting a CD partner after a split is not doing that much either.
But fighting for ENDA would be. It could protect Alimony payments, child support etc.
now I am not surprised no way
That the relationships are different is clear. But what is the operative difference that effects disclosure at which stage of intimacy? This is needed to know what relationships disclosure of being a CD is neccessary.Quote:
Originally Posted by Katie B
And remember we do consider some things, like STDs, require disclosure by law prior to engaging in sexual acts but outting someone elses medical history against their will is often considered both unethical AND a crime. So both an obligation to anothers privacy as well as an obligation to disclosure BOTH exist in ethics and law in certain circumstances.
Firstly on when one would someone be obliged to tell:
A first date?
Asking someone on a first date?
Before first sexual encounter with that person?
Before Marriage?
As for other relationship types:
Should close friends where there is a strong trust bond be told?
Ones parents?
Ones children?
Ones siblings?
A Boss if being outted could effect the business?
Darn good questions.Quote:
If not that, why? If not you, who?
I decided that I couldn't stand by and that if I wanted anyone else to do things then I should do them too so thats why I'm doing what I can, increasing in stages both my public outness and my civil-rights activity.
Why do you keep ramming ENDA down our throats? ENDA is a proposed U.S. federal law, and I'm not from the US, neither is Sheila, or did you miss that fact? And don't bother picking my post to pieces, a simple yes or no will do if you can manage that :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by battybattybats
absolutely great point. If you is gonna be honest and out then you can't fault you ex for telling everyone. That is one reason that in our society we have to keep secrets. This will never be an ideal world. You can't walk up to someone and say "you're the ugliest thing in the world" put in parentheses (just being honest). Batty's conundrum points this out. Everyone has taken it as you HAVE to. When what Batty said (if I remember so long ago) is that if we expect honesty we should be honest and it won't happen in the real world. The conundrum as I see it is that CD's want total acceptance even in their closet except when it may hurt their feelings. So if you want public acceptance and you get outted by your SO (usually not due to CDing but from some other arrogant selfish thing(s) you have done), expect her to tell someone.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheila
See the conundrum? Damned if you due, miserable if you don't. So I say we work on removing the stigma and then being outted as a CD is no worse than sitting around the house in your boxers and the true reason your wife is packing her bags becomes more evident to you. IT isn't the clothes usually, it is the BS you bring with it. Take that from a princess who knows the world revolves around her.
If it ain't black its white
if it ain't day it's night
if you ain't wrong you're right
gotta be this or that
If life was that easy
No.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tamara Croft
I mention ENDA as an example.
In Australia that anti-discrimination laws vary from state to state and most don't cover CDs only TSs if any and that unfair dismissal laws only cover businesses with large numbers of employees anyway and antivillification laws don't even cover TS and that Australia has no federal charter of rights at all would be Australia examples.
Is the UK a haven of TG equality? Not going by http://www.crossdressers.com/forums/...d.php?t=108207 or http://birdofparadox.wordpress.com/2...stic-violence/
Has it got all family issues covered?
But as these are general principals I'm discussing it doesn't matter, I'm not talking about anyone here's specific lives.
No you did not, or you would have said ENDA for example, you did not say that to Sheila, you said, and I quote: -Quote:
Originally Posted by battybattybats
Where in that sentence does it say example?Quote:
But fighting for ENDA would be. It could protect Alimony payments, child support etc.
And London is just one place, don't base the whole of the UK on some pride march. I live in Nottinghamshire, it is very TG friendly, so is Manchester, so is Birmingham... the list goes on... basing that one article on the whole of the UK is an extremely bad reference.
Geez Batty, do you "have to win" the arguments in this thread?
Isn't that obvious? I asked for a simple yes or no, still didn't get what I asked for, had to add a load more waffle that still isn't relevant to the original post.Quote:
Originally Posted by AmandaM
I think the reason could be that Batty's a natural for the political arena!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Tamara Croft
Oh, I don't know. Granted, Batty's response had many words, as is her style. But her response did nonetheless start with the single word sentence:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tamara Croft
"No."
Equally, I may have been tempted to put "No." in one post and the rest in a second, supplementary post. :)
Sarah...
Batty many many have responded here so where do you stand on the questions above ................. no ifs or buts or maybes ............... what is your stance on them?
1) DO you think a CD should come out to their partner early, despite the dangers to the relationship, family, job, career etc...
2) do you think the CD shopuld also be honest to everyone? Shouldn't they be honest to Parents, children, siblings, cousins, workmates and on to cover everyone? Certainly some of these relationships are more important than others but shouldn't CDs be honest in all of them?
3) do you think ... that if CDs should come out early, the SO's have a responsibility to make it easier for all CDs to do so? ..........
4)do you think SO's? Should risk their families, their friendships, their jobs even by being open about being in a rlationship with a CD (as well as any skeletons in their own closets)?
5) so Essentially ,if a SO thinks a CD should confess they are a CD despite the risk of others judgement should not the SO be willing to equally share that burden? ...... do you think this should be the case ?
6) so having given your answers to the above ..... do you believe ...SOs have a responsibility to strive for TG rights and acceptance for their childrens or grandchildrens sakes?
please number your answers in accordance with the questions for ease of refernce ..... thanks
Are you suggesting I also have to use the word term before using any term as well as the word example before using any examples? I'm not sure Linguists would concur. But if you suggest I failed to make my use of an example clear then granted that seems to be the case and I'll try to be more obvious. If however you are saying I am a liar thats rather different.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tamara Croft
Sure, issues vary over geography, though part of the pride issues relate to police behaviour and the other link relates to the UK government. Btw do you have the local stats for TG employment rates? Perhaps we need to work out what TG-friendly places are doing right and un-friendly wrong to better fic the unfriendly places.Quote:
And London is just one place, don't base the whole of the UK on some pride march. I live in Nottinghamshire, it is very TG friendly, so is Manchester, so is Birmingham... the list goes on... basing that one article on the whole of the UK is an extremely bad reference.
A fair question.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheila
As soon as they can, yes. As the SO should be able to give truly informed consent in the relationship. But ITP is far from easy to overcome and I think that needs to be acknowledged by us all and that has a resulting responsibility on the entire community both Cis and Trans to overcome, just as racism and sexism is everyones problem. And as ITP is so hard to overcome some CDs plain wont be able to come out to partners from the outset, or for many years. Even though I was I acknowledge others are in worse situations, especially because of the era many older CDs married in where the consequences of coming out and the level of acceptance were much worse, and when marriage was touted by some as a cure for homosexuality and the like.Quote:
1) DO you think a CD should come out to their partner early, despite the dangers to the relationship, family, job, career etc...
As the overcoming Internalised Oppression article points out people aren't to blame for suffering from it.
As they can. These relationships are delicate and it may take a long time to effectively come out to each without losing each relationship. Gradually working up to it and helping them adjust slowly is I think often the best way but of course each situation is unique. But transphobia is everyones problem, like racism and sexism. Besides I think everyone deserves to be able to be the real them and for others to have a chance to know the real them, a feelling expressed by most of my family and friends when I came out to them.Quote:
2) do you think the CD shopuld also be honest to everyone? Shouldn't they be honest to Parents, children, siblings, cousins, workmates and on to cover everyone? Certainly some of these relationships are more important than others but shouldn't CDs be honest in all of them?
I do think that ending transphobia is everyones responsibility, every CDs, every SOs, and everyone elses too. But that doesn't mean it's best fixed by mass outting.Quote:
3) do you think ... that if CDs should come out early, the SO's have a responsibility to make it easier for all CDs to do so? ..........
Just as ideally a CD should be out to the SO from the outset I think a CD should be able to be out as a CD in society and not hide it nor be penalised for being so. And that an SO should ideally also be open about it and not penalised for that.Quote:
4)do you think SO's? Should risk their families, their friendships, their jobs even by being open about being in a rlationship with a CD (as well as any skeletons in their own closets)?
However because of the delicate relationships involved as well as risk with work etc and the consequences of transphobia that this too pragmatically is difficult, likely needing to be gradual, a likely neccessarily long-term goal. And so gradual work on TG acceptance of each relationship and related issues is likely the optimum way of making this possible rather than directly confrontingly coming out to everyone from the outset. However every out SO makes a big difference to increasing TG acceptance and overcoming the wrongs done to the society by transphobia.
Again circumstances vary case to case so this is generalised rather than universal. Each is a unique circumstance and a matter of balancing predictions of consequences of each possible action and inaction each with it's own responibilities.
IF they demand the CD should have been open (an argument of extreme idealism of honesty and virtue that also either ignores (or is held in ignorance of, to be fair) the existence of ITP or assumes every CD must be capable of overcoming it) then It seems thus far to me they'd be hypocrits if they are not equally willing to take those risks and be equally as extremely and idealisticly virtuous as they demand others be (noting that pretty much everyone, myself included, is guilty of hypocracy sometimes, that it is a common human behaviour that can be difficult to be self-aware of and hard to overcome). However even if they are willing that doesn't mean they have to do so, but that if for example the CD wants to leave the house dressed or go to meetings or do anything else where outting is possible, including choosing to come out to members of the CDs family or the CDs friends then it seems to me the GG cannot allow her fear of such risks to permit her to demand the CD stay hidden or they'd be being hypocritical (again acknowledging hypocracy is common and difficult to avoid or overcome). However this is not yet a firm conclusion.Quote:
5) so Essentially ,if a SO thinks a CD should confess they are a CD despite the risk of others judgement should not the SO be willing to equally share that burden? ...... do you think this should be the case ?
Yes. But not just them. As I think everyone has a responsibility towards everyones equal rights I think that this is true of everybody for all human/civil-rights issues. That anyone unwilling to undo inequality is cheating the principle of equality and therfore do not deserve the rights and privileges they get from society that are not shared equally. So I think this responsibility extends not just to SO's but to everyone. And for far more than just TG issues.Quote:
6) so having given your answers to the above ..... do you believe ...SOs have a responsibility to strive for TG rights and acceptance for their childrens or grandchildrens sakes?
Again I keep thinking back to the hopothetical dilemma of a drowning child. Once that child is seen anyone who can swim who does not try to rescue them is choosing to let the child die, they are committing murder by inaction. So too then do I think everyone is responsible for ending transphobia with it's resultant harms to CDs and their loved-ones once they are made aware of it's existence. Otherwise they become responsible for that harm by choosing to let it keep occuring.
I hope the question by question answers will suffice?Quote:
please number your answers in accordance with the questions for ease of refernce ..... thanks
And I'm still pondering these conclusions, like every idea I re-evaluate it and re-assess it when new ideas, argumemnts or data becomes available.
At no point is anyone obliged to tell anything they don't wish to. Wisdom dictates that one's future spouse should know, however, though I deem it simpler to show rather than tell. In other words, I don't come right out and say it, but I don't hide it either. Show a hint here and there (nail polish, wear panties, etc... lol) and women will clue in. But making a "confession" of it gives the wrong impression.Quote:
Originally Posted by battybattybats
No, to all of them. Again, this is personal choice, and depends on one's situation. If, say, my brother asked me, I'd tell him the truth, but as he lives 2000 miles from me, it's just not necessary. What would be the point?Quote:
Originally Posted by battybattybats
All kinds of people have all kinds of secrets. Maybe that guy you watch football with puts on a dog collar when he gets home to his cat-o-nine-tails wielding wife. Or your co-worker, sitting across your desk, who likes donkey porn. Maybe your sister likes to live out her fantasy of having 9 guys in bed at once. Maybe your cousin likes her husband to pee on her. Would you beat them up with many words until they tell the world of their kinks?
Bosses... absolutely not. What an employee does on his own time is none of his employer's business. Period. Drug testing that is not specific to whether the employee is under the influence only during work hours is already crossing the line.
I haven't even bothered to look into this ENDA thing you're on about, but I suspect it's yet another pile of legalistic excrement designed to further tie the hands of employers in the name of some more of your imaginary "rights." No one has a right to a job. One's employment exists at the whim of the employer -- and even when I'm an employee, I'm okay with that. Keeps me on my toes, working hard, and doing a good job.
And I've found something startling: as long as I work hard and do a good job, the boss doesn't care if I dress up like Little Bo Peep, smoke weed, and rape squirrels on weekends.
And if... big if... I ever ended up working for someone who had a problem with something I did on my own time, I wouldn't wait around to get fired. I'd quit, and go to work for someone who wasn't an asshole.
Boiled down, and simply put: if, for any reason, you need your job protected by law, you're f***ing incompetent, and should just get a federal job, where incompetence is the status quo.
What about say someone with an STD being obliged to tell a sexual partner before having sex that they are say, HIV+? Thats the law in many places.Quote:
Originally Posted by MissConstrued
And yet some bosses do fire people for 'bringing the firm into disrepute' or the like.Quote:
Bosses... absolutely not. What an employee does on his own time is none of his employer's business. Period. Drug testing that is not specific to whether the employee is under the influence only during work hours is already crossing the line.
It merely says you cant fire people for being a CD or gay etc. Those laws already exist for race and religion etc, this merely covers us as equal to christians and jews.Quote:
I haven't even bothered to look into this ENDA thing you're on about, but I suspect it's yet another pile of legalistic excrement designed to further tie the hands of employers in the name of some more of your imaginary "rights."
You think Diane Schroer wasn't the most qualified person for the job and was somehow incompetant?Quote:
Boiled down, and simply put: if, for any reason, you need your job protected by law, you're f***ing incompetent, and should just get a federal job, where incompetence is the status quo.
If CDing had an actual negative consequence then yes there is an obligation. But what is getting hurt when a person reveals they are a CD? Just the other person's prejudices and perceptions. That is their responsibility not yours. So a better analogy would be someone with an incommunicable disease - should they tell? knowing that the most likely reaction from the other person is irrational disgust and fear.Quote:
Originally Posted by battybattybats
You are making a logical argument without regard to human behavior. Taking care of yourself and your immediate family will always take precedence over changing society unless society is particularly threatening - ie a ruthless dictatorship. There are many needs in this world - there a 1 billion people starving as we speak. If you apply logic then tackling transphobia is hardly a priority when there are so many more fundamental issues that need to be tackled head-on.Quote:
But doesn't the gene found suggest that there is need to make the world more TG friendly for the sake of children and childrens children? Doesn't it make overcoming transphobia part of protecting our own familes (mine too, I still have cousins!)
But that is part of the honesty conundrum - the fact that your clothes choice could make your SO walk away from an otherwise healthy and loving relationship. This should NOT be a subject that is raised to the level of being a relationship breaker -it should be more like your SO knowing that you are a stamp collector. No big deal. However if you are TG to the point of going full time, or going public, or if you have a femme alter ego where you become a different person then these are substantive grounds for telling all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deborah Jane
Batty, I'm amazed! Such a short response! Hooray for brevity!
Completely off-the-wall irrelevant. Cross-dressing is not a disease. It's a hobby. Like paintball. Lots of hobbies men do take time and money, and lead others to think they're weird. Like golf.Quote:
Originally Posted by battybattybats
Who? And DILLIGAF?Quote:
Originally Posted by battybattybats
There is no "most qualified" for a job. There's always someone out there who can do it better. Life sucks, get a new job, get over it.
Want to take a stab at how many jobs I've quit, and how many I've been fired from? I have no sympathy.
It's all very quixotic of you to want to protect the very few people such laws might affect. But the end result is discrimination lawsuits for firing an incompetent worker who just happens to be a member of a special protected minority. Companies either get stuck with dunderheads, or lose money, and lawyers get rich. (Ever ask yourself why the bar associations are always behind new laws like this? Duh!) The bad far outweighs the good.
And one of these days, if you're lucky, you'll bump your noggin and all that Marxist twaddle will fall out.
Except that it does not work that way. The private sector always finds ways to dodge the law. They simply announce a company restructuring, the position is no longer required etc. Companies DO NOT get stuck with unwanted individuals, some get sued by being incompetent about how they got rid of unwanted people.Quote:
Originally Posted by MissConstrued
I support these types of laws despite knowing that they do little direct good. The reason I do is laws are powerful tools for social engineering. They inform society in the most direct way what is acceptable and what is not. And although people may hate certain laws when introduced and successfully bypass them, future generations do not. So a law introduced today protecting CDs from discrimination will create a society 20 years from now where such discrimination will be considered immoral and unacceptable.
As someone with an incomunicable but disabling illness.. that too has an impact on relationships. If back when my illness was mild I kept it hidden only to have it get bad, or if in remission it returned impacting livelihood etc Shouldn't a dating partner have a right to know the predicatble or more likely future possibilities good and bad?Quote:
Originally Posted by Satrana
Then Women and African Americans and Aboriginals were wrong and shouldn't have risked their imediate families for the future of their group? As thats's what many of each group did resulting in the better situation for their descendants now. The very possibility of orphaning children, so much more severe than what we're talking about, was discussed by suffragettes who went on hunger strikes when in prison to get women fair treatment and the vote!Quote:
You are making a logical argument without regard to human behavior. Taking care of yourself and your immediate family will always take precedence over changing society unless society is particularly threatening - ie a ruthless dictatorship.
As one of the most discriminated groups in the entire world, maybe even the most I'm not sure what civil-rights issue is remotely it's equal. The murder rate of African American Transwomen by official population figures is comparable to genocide. It is almost literally decimation in the roman meaning of the word! What other group of people's leading cause of death is murder?Quote:
There are many needs in this world - there a 1 billion people starving as we speak. If you apply logic then tackling transphobia is hardly a priority when there are so many more fundamental issues that need to be tackled head-on.
Last i checked scientists didn't think there a likely genetic predisposition to paintball or golf. But they do the whole TG spectrum and have evidence thus far for neurological differences in TSs even no-op no-hormones and a gene more common amongst TSs. With more studies expected to find more biological causation.Quote:
Originally Posted by MissConstrued
And if it's an inheritable characteristic, even a recessive one like eye colour that may take 3 or 4 generations to resurface isn't that important to disclose?
Look her up maybe? It's not like google won't bring up plenty of articles on her court case or vids of her testimony before legilative bodies.Quote:
Who?
It's pertinent to the point isn't it?Quote:
And DILLIGAF?
Regarding your opinions on jobs. You've got a testable hypothesis.
Your notion, that being TG is irellevant, that only bad workers get the sack etc would suggest that out TG peoples joblessness rate should be proportionally equal to non-TG peoples joblessness rate yes?
While if it is not then that would mean their status as TGs did effect their employment sucess and prospects yes?
So check those figures and lets see if that test disproves your hypothesis? Basic scientific method :)
For most part-timers who don't do that sort of thing, telling is easier. It also insures there the clued in person knows the situation of the teller and not getting the wrong impression. For example assuming the shower is a drag queen, or assuming the shower is a CD when she's a TS in the early stages.Quote:
Originally Posted by MissConstrued
I think that would depend on how you tell.Quote:
But making a "confession" of it gives the wrong impression.
Tell that to Peter Oiler.Quote:
What an employee does on his own time is none of his employer's business. Period.
ENDA, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, is designed to stop the kind of thing that happened to Peter Oiler and others over the years, from happening to other people.Quote:
I haven't even bothered to look into this ENDA thing you're on about, but I suspect it's yet another pile of legalistic excrement designed to further tie the hands of employers in the name of some more of your imaginary "rights."
To some of us, we think employers should treat employees as assets, not liabilities to be tossed away at a whim.Quote:
No one has a right to a job. One's employment exists at the whim of the employer -- and even when I'm an employee, I'm okay with that.
Peter Oiler found out different.Quote:
And I've found something startling: as long as I work hard and do a good job, the boss doesn't care if I dress up like Little Bo Peep, smoke weed, and rape squirrels on weekends.
Some people aren't self described misfit singletons who have trouble fitting in and have families and children and are reluctant to quit their jobs since getting a new one can be difficult even in good economic times.Quote:
I ever ended up working for someone who had a problem with something I did on my own time, I wouldn't wait around to get fired. I'd quit, and go to work for someone who wasn't an asshole.
Peter Oiler, and the rest of us too. You don't believe that employers should be allowed to fire us for being TG without repercussion?Quote:
Boiled down, and simply put: if, for any reason, you need your job protected by law, you're f***ing incompetent,
It may be a hobby to you, which may explain your words in this thread, but it isn't to a lot of us, it's who we are. Some of us are TS as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by MissConstrued
As you have said, you're a self described misfit who has trouble fitting in and getting along. Most of us aren't like you, so we can't live like you. Also some places aren't so misfit-friendly, if you were noted as getting fired/quitting a lot, you might have trouble finding any job at all.Quote:
Want to take a stab at how many jobs I've quit, and how many I've been fired from? I have no sympathy.
But ENDA would protect you, as well, and plenty of other competent folks, who vastly outnumber the incompetent so how does the bad outweigh the good? Do you want to get fired for being a crossdresser?Quote:
But the end result is discrimination lawsuits for firing an incompetent worker who just happens to be a member of a special protected minority. The bad far outweighs the good.
Batty is a Marxist? While she is socially progressive, as I am, I don't recall reading anything on how she views economic matters. Being socially progressive doesn't equal being Marxist. I did not care for red-baiting in the past. You remember the 80's, when some assholes called progressives "pinko commie liberals" and whatnot.Quote:
And one of these days, if you're lucky, you'll bump your noggin and all that Marxist twaddle will fall out.
I could also say, "If you're lucky, you'll bump your noggin and all that Libertarian/Rocky Mountain individualist twaddle will fall out." :-)
Veronica
Rondelle (Ron) Rogers Jr.
Sorry Batty but no one dies of dating or marrying a CD and you cannot pass this on via personal contact. It would be more a comparison to say having a seizure disorder r Tourrete's.. It would be nice to know when you are driving 90 MPH down the highway when your partner starts seizing or calling you a "mother......"Quote:
Originally Posted by battybattybats
Dang now I am in TWO categories that make me weird. What's next Karaoke?Quote:
Originally Posted by MissConstrued
What part of my post did you fail to understand? I said, you did not say 'for example' it's quite clear. I never used the word 'liar', I never implied you were a 'liar', I simply stated a word you failed to use, therefore, your post was not clear. You really do have to make something out of nothing don't you, just to argue. And you really are taking your own thread off topic, talking about std's now and some african women... like seriously?? why?? they are completely irrelevant to your original post, which was asking SO's what part they are taking to bring their CD partners out... Don't bother replying to this post, this time I am done with this thread, it's just too :blah: :blah: :blah: You're giving my IQ a headache :\Quote:
Originally Posted by BBB
I actually made that statement to show this one was not correct:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lorileah
By pointing out that under law and by many moral and ethical arguments both an obligatiion to disclose some information can exist at some times buat also where I pointed out that releasing peoples private medical information was also usually illegal and considered unethical that an obligation to respect others privacy was often seen to exist.Quote:
Originally Posted by MissConstrued
I do agree that CDing is not intrinsicly harmful in and of itself and so is not comparable to having an STD. I was merely pointing out that a discloure obligation can exist.. how far and to what that extends and if it covers CDing is seperate from that.
As for the relevance of my mentioning 'some african women' Tamara raised, I was referring to the extraordinarily high rate of African American Transwomen being murdered http://www.crossdressers.com/forums/...ad.php?t=97576
Quote:
Originally Posted by VeronicaMoonlit
"Progressive" is a euphemism for Marxist. It's "progressives" who want gun control. It's "progressives" who want more federal control over the States. It's "progressives" who have been raising my taxes. It's "progressives" who want to tell everyone else how to live. Doesn't sound very liberal to me. Sounds kinda red, really.
Everything "progressives" want involves the implementation of more laws and higher taxation, which are directly contrary to freedom. And anything that impinges on freedom is directly contrary to my way of life in what is supposed to be a free country.
You see, I believe people should be free, which involves large amounts of personal responsibility. (Responsibility? Perish the thought! :eek::brolleyes:) I believe we had something good, once, when we lived by that Constitution, and when we understood the Bill of Rights. I've read the Founders -- Federalists, Anti-Federalists, and all -- and I get it. And I'll savagely fight, tooth and nail, anyone who wants to take that from me. I'll fight until I'm the last one left who wants to be free, and go down fighting.
Shay's Rebellion. "there are rules for everything and exceptions for every rule"
Honesty.
Not needed.
Check your marriage CONTRACT. It's alot like your job CONTRACT. A handshake and a promise don't cut it, you sign your name.
I really can't see Batty's or MissConstrued's Significant Others being too shocked to find out they dig on chick's clothes.
If you swear to your Priest that you are going to abide by all the Laws of the Church, make sure you're not biting off more than you can chew.
I'd say most crossdressers do it 'cause they get off on it.
If you played with dolls as a kid and peed sitting down, a dress is not a cure, a dress won't make your life easier. Honestly, your life is going to be difficult.
If you value something, protect it.
If we don't get back to replying to the original notion of this thread, and stop meandering into irrelevant topics or continually(!!) challenging another member's opinions, this thread will be shut down.
Sorry Batty, my bad if I misinterpreted :) (should wear the bloody red wig when reading these posts)Quote:
Originally Posted by battybattybats
now I see Truth as protecting my relationship ............ lies as destroying it if they are discovered .............. but I do not believe that we neccasarily have an obligation to be honest with others about what goes on in our relationship and makes them work for us, nor do I see a need for an SO to be honest about her partners TGism to all and sundry ........ just my :2c:Quote:
Originally Posted by Berinthia
I may not agree (or have time to read) all that Batty says, but after reading something like this quoted above, I definitely would give her my sympathy. I have been on multiple discussion boards on several different topics and I have also moderated some as well. The whole point of a "discussion board" is discussion. If there's something I don't want to read, I don't read it. If there is a person I don't like, I put them on my ignore list. Maybe Batty goes on and on a bit but I have yet to see her make a post stooping to this level.
Anyway, to answer the actual topic, I would say that the more exposure the better. True acceptance of a TG in your life means you also have to come out of the closet (at least at some point). True acceptance doesn't mean "I accept you being trans but don't tell the family or my children or my co-workers or my [whoever]." Keeping something a secret can work in the short-term but it rarely works in the long term. I do believe that true support does obligate the supporter to also accept the right for the TG to tell whoever else they want to. There is a famous quote that went something like "It is better to stand up for what is right than what is popular." I believe there are more important things in life than simply being comfortable. Not having to deal with societal unacceptance by acknowledging a close person to you who is trans may make your life "comfortable" but it is not doing the right thing. A person has the right to be who they are. Children also have the right to be raised in a way that teaches them to learn about differences among people and accept the right for people to be who they are. It is a parent's job to expose their children to different things so that they are properly educated when the real world hits. Hiding someone from something whether it is a kid or adult for fear of unacceptance is not acceptance, period. It is a test of character and ultimately a test on whether or not one is merited to be a honorable leader or a blind follower.
Ding ding ding ding!! This one did it. This thread be dead. :Angry3: