Yes, Catherine - they would be freaks! heh heh. :lol:
David H. : Not only have I not "outed" anybody, this particular person is reasonably outspoken about their transsexuality. They had to go through the transitioning process. That requires them to live in society for a full year as the opposite sex BEFORE undergoing the operation. ANYBODY remotely close to them knows what they are going through. So you can take the drama queen in you and try it somewhere else. I would NEVER break anybodies anonymity if it were important to them !
apondsong, if the person wanted it wildly known every GLBT web site in America would have them held up as proof that GLBT are smart, capable and none deviant people....and every right wing whack job site would be holding them up as proof that there is no need for anti-discrimination laws.
Just because the people close to her know does not mean it is public knowledge.
I am of the opinon that the Gay Agenda is using the "gender" issue as a mask to promote their behavioral programs, not their gender issues.
Dam it CUZ, I would have said that. Will you stop stealing my THUNDER?
This state has its priorities wrong :roll:
It occurred to me that this is just a silly attempt to extend the ADA beyond where Congress wanted to go. Is "transgender" stuff a psychiatric disorder? I believe it is. Indeed, it leads many to acts of self-mutilation every year.
Here's the kicker: Does it result in a "disability"? No it doesn't. Absent some other problem (such as infection from a gender-bending operation) they can chuck wood just like you and me.
It is strange. It is "oogy". While I don't believe that there is enough reason for gettig government involved to FORBID such medical self mutilation, I also don't believe that we should PROTECT (and thereby encourage) such activities.
Government is not required to fund, protect or encourage every silly, stupid, or psychiatrically disturbed activity.
"It occurred to me that this is just a silly attempt to extend the ADA beyond where Congress wanted to go. Is "transgender" stuff a psychiatric disorder? I believe it is. Indeed, it leads many to acts of self-mutilation every year. " <~~~~~ thejohnchapman
REALLY john? Do you have a degree in psychiatric medicine? :shock: You know more about transgenderism than the AMA? :lol:
And..."self-mutilation"....? hahahahahaa Tell us all john, what does this "self-mutilation" by the MANY look like? Source? :roll:
Come back with some facts for a refreshing change.
The lady to whom I was referencing IS in the public limelight...HAS BEEN and WILL BE as well. If you bozos don't know where to go to hear the message...it's not my problem. Just don't be announcing as facts, things I have not done, or that you are completely ignorant of ...thankyouverymuch.
apondsong, maybe you can answer the question no one else around here has been able to answer
what sexuality are those who are only sexually attracted to children? You know, those people who are neither heterosexual or homosexual because they've *never* been attracted to adults.
David, adults that are attracted to chidren (sexually) are pedophiles, and they may be heterosexual or homosexual.
hmmm, that's funny. That isn't what the research that shows that gay men don't commit more incidents of child molestation said. God I love original research.
Pedophiles are define as those who have a sexual orientation that has had the focus of their sexual attraction be an adult at one time or another. As a matter of fact, without have an adult focus of sexuality no determination of heterosexuality or homosexuality can be made....according to the researchers who say that gay men do not commit more acts of child molestation than straight men in proportion to population.
And hey, I'm a forward thinking guy. I'll accept that someone who is not attracted to adults at all is netiher a heterosexual or a homosexual. I'm ok with that definition. After all it equalizes the stats and makes homosexual men look no better or worse than their heterosexual counterparts.
But what I want to know is what sexual are they then? And can someone assure me and all other voters out there in no uncertain terms that some judge somewhere is never ever ever going to say that those people, whatever sexuals they turn out to be, will never never never fall under the protection of this law? After all, this is a sexual orientation protection. And even though the legislature has seen fit to define what it wants sexual orientation to be there is no assurance that a judge won't accept there being some other sexual orientation in the future.
So, what sexual are they and are you, and everyone else who says we have to support this law for basic rights for GLBT, be consistent or hypocritical in whether you'll support equal rights for all sexuals or just those sexuals you happen to agree with?
Sex with children is illegal...it is not protected by this law in anyway. To make that leap is ludicrous.
sex between men was once illegal....to not learn from history is ludicrous.
I've never said that sex with children would be protected by this law, nor have I suggested that. What I have wondered is what sexuality are those who are only interested in sexual relations with children. This law is about protecting people on the basis of their sexuality Charlotte. Surely once their sexuality is clinically determined you'll be all in favor of giving them their equal rights and protections in housing, credit, employeement.....
So does this mean our sons and daughters will have to accept transgendered individuals as dorm mates? And if they don't it is descrimination?
David...you infer (often) that this law will lead to protection of those who are sexually attracted and act on sexually assaulting little children. That is misleading and wrong. It will not happen. Being gay/lesbian is not illegal, abusing kids is. Thanks.
If you'd told me growing up, that female reporters would be allowed in male locker rooms I would have laughed. Ridiculous. How could that possibly be? Surely you have a right to expect only males in a male locker room? Unfortunately, your right to not be naked in front of people you don't want to be naked in front of was trumped by a female reporter's "right' to a career.
All common sense tumbles to the quest for "fairness". This law will be no different.
I don't see how this law cannot lead to sexual orientations other than homosexual and heterosexual being protected Charlotte. After all, according to your own arguements, it would be wrong to deny someone protections for housing or employment based solely on their sexual orientation. That is what you say right? I'm not reading all those times you've typed that in wrong am I?
People were once told that it was misleading and wrong to say that one day the gay/lesbian community, after getting sodomy laws repealed, would be seeking to marry too Charlotte. Again, history does not help your cause one bit.
being gay/lesbian used to be illegal Charlotte. What assurance do we have that sex with children will always be illegal - why no assurance at all. With groups out there trying to give children their sexual rights, voting rights and "equality" with adults there can be no peace of mind in the fact that it is illegal now.
But that's ok Charlotte, I understand. You're for protecting homosexuals and heterosexuals but not other sexuals. I get it Charlotte. I just don't see how that would be any different than protecting whites and blacks but not latinos and indians.
David...sexual orientation is defined in the law. It does not include pedophiles. End of story. You are using misleading information. This law is to protect only what is definded as sexual orientation:
9-C.__Sexual orientation.__"Sexual orientation" means a
person's actual or perceived heterosexuality, bisexuality,
homosexuality or gender identity or expression.
Interracial marriage was illegal too...Let's be clear...pedophiles are not protected by this law. Children cannot consent.
Had a male reported requested the same rights as this female reporter for a career, do you think that he would have been allowed into a female locker room? Don't think so.
I am so tired of the discrimination being brought against white heterosexual males.
It is definitely a double standard which the law permits. And I just don't agree with it.
Like so many have said to me, prove it. How many cases of white male discrimination have been filed in Maine? They are already covered under the discimination law...just let me know! Thanks.
So you do favor discrimination when you don't like the class being discriminated against! I get it Charlotte.
I was thinking that the "deformities" apondsong was talking about were instances where babies are born with BOTH sexes. (I think that the fact that it happens AT ALL should end debates over if gay people could be "born" gay.)
Dave, I see your point, but children will always be protected. Above all others, our children should be protected, and that is one thing I know that crosses party lines. Convicted pedophiles should get drafted to the front line. Maybe become the soldiers who search for mines in the ground? It took me a while to think of a place where they couldn't cause any pain. (I haven't had a lot of sleep, so bear with me on this idea concerning kids: How about 21 being the age of consent? hehehehe... That would also be for voting and going into the military. Keep the drinking age the same. That way we don't have kids who can't drink, but can be trusted to die for their country. Freshmen/sophmore college courses could be taught in highschool! No 18yr. olds getting married! So, I want to keep my kids home a few more years.. heheheheh : )
I do not remember when this occurred. But I beleive that a few years ago, a ale student went to court to be allowed to play on a girl's soccer team. Why? Beacuse the school did not have a male soccer team, and he wanted to play. The court ruled against him, and denied him the right to play on the girl's soccer team.
Nationally, I read that a man went to court to be allowed to exercise at 'Curves.' The court denied him that right. So women can have their own exercise club, but a man is denied that same right.
The Citadel was an all male school, and a female went to court to be allowed to attend. The court allowed her to attend the school. I do not know where or if there are all female schools, but I am sure that they do exist. Would the court allow a male student to attend one of those schools?
Job opportunities - Men apply for jobs, but right on the advertisement the company encourages women to apply. Why? Because they would prefer to hire a women - not who is best for the job. This is called Equal Opportunity - but hey let's call it what it is a "QUOTA." After all, the Federal government will give grants to minority owned businesses, women owned businesses, businesses who employ people based on race and gender, etc.
I believe that discrimination against that white male happens and yes here in Maine too. I also believe that a men do not sue for discrimination for 2 reasons: first, it costs money that they do not have and second, on the national level the rulings being upheld. They probalby beleive that they do not have achance of winning, so why bother. Just becuase cases are not of heard of - doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
I do not believe that all are treated fairly. And that is where I have a problem. It is not just gays/lesbians being discriminated against.
Domino, it may cross party lines now, but it will not always. There really is a growing movement to drastically reduce or do away with age of consent laws, just like in the late 60's there was a growing movement to do away with sodomy laws and normalize homosexuality. [edited, dan is correct about age of consent in California]
I'm sorry, but knowing that state legislators have submitted bills to do away with age of consent laws does not offer me any assurance that those laws will always be there to protect children. Knowing that there exists elected politicians who openly discuss giving voting rights to minors does not provide much comfort either.
California has already lowered their minimum age of consent to 12!!!!!! and we all know how fond Maine is of following California's lead.
Do you have a source to support this claim?
Everything that I can find says that the age of consent in California is 18.
The link below will take you to an article that gives a summary of current laws:
You're right Dan. I see where I got that and went looking for the law on the matter. Age of Consent in California is 18.
The age at which a person can get birth control on their own has nothing to do with the age at which they can give informed consent for sexual contact from a strictly legal standpoint.
Apondsong is obviously 'intellectually challenged' (stupid). Let's review how we got here:
To the moron self described as apondsong:
Here are some FACTS to make you look almost as ignorant as you actually are:
First, it isn't the AMA that classifies mental disorders, it is the APA (American Psychiatric Association). They publish a book called the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM). It is now in the New Text Revision of the fourth edition. I own a copy and use it very frequently. I do so and have done so for a good part of my multi-decade career in cross-examining doctors and mental health care professionals.
So, does the APA classify a variety of "gender identity disorders" as listed "disorders"? Indeed, it does.
You can view:
-- the disorder of which you were ignorant,
-- in the book you did not know about,
-- published by the organization you'd apparently never heard of, here
If you wish to subscribe, you can review the diagnostic criteria for the "disorder" on the eleventh listed line item here. I suggest this because you OBVIOUSLY don't have the book.
For some perspectives on the politics of the issue, see:
read this and contemplate your obvious ignorance, you useless dimwit
Note that I gave you a website that argues for CHANGE of the gender identity disorders. The "argument" hasn't changed the minds of the APA. Remember the APA? These are the guys (and gals) whom the real doctors consider to be the experts. Not MORONS like you.
Does the US government, that hotbed of liberality, recognize gender-bending mental conditions as disorders?
It does -- see the entry here.
Moreover, I DID know that homosexuality (as opposed to Gender Identity Disorder and Transvestic Fetishism, which is what we were talking about) used to be listed as a disorder.
Know how they "cured " homosexuality? They voted that it wasn't a disorder any more.
Now, while I didn't have the exact numerical designation ready off the top of my head, I DID know about the classification of disorders in this category -- because I REGULARLY delve into this field in which, again, you are a moron compounded as to offensiveness by your ego, made yet more laughable by your ignorance while you attempt to teach your grandfather to suck eggs.
almost final thought - wouldn't it be interesting to know what the American Academy of Pediatrics thinks about whether, at some critical stage, either gender identity, or becoming obsessed with same, is MUTABLE? Do they suggest that, if your kid presents with the symptoms of gender confusion, you simply say -- fine?
Nope - they don't seem to suggest the "apondsong ostrich" approach.
More "facts" demonstrating that you are dangerous and stupid
These traits suggest a conflict or confusion about gender and relationship with peers of the same sex. The possible causes of these variations are speculative and controversial. Research demonstrates a role for both biological factors and social learning in gender-identity confusion.
Family and parenting influences also might contribute to gender confusion. Family studies indicate that effeminate boys often have unusually close relationships with their mothers and especially distant relationships with their fathers. Research suggests that the mothers of some effeminate boys actually encourage and support "female" activities in their sons.
In short, bad parenting CAN cause the gender identity DISORDER.
So, bottom line - the pervasive belief that you are the wrong gender biologically, coupled with a wish to change gender, is generally recognized to be a DISORDER by the experts. The experts are NOT you. You are the antithesis of an expert. You could have looked up this stuff in about ten minutes using google, yahoo, or dogpile. Instead, you take VERY poorly aimed shots at those who know what is going on in the area.
Now, as to whether the procedure itself should be considered a form of self mutilation, I commend you to:
the consent form for cutting your ____ off
Same form - female to "male"
Note: I'd strongly suggest you have a shot of vodka prior to looking at the screwups in the "photographs" section - the ones that this guy has fixed. Moreover, the "female to male" results generally look, at best, bizarre.
BTW -- is the debate ongoing as to the politics of listing this as a disorder? Sure.
Look under item 12
It is a hot topic among the docs of the APA. Apparently, however, you were not aware it was even an issue. You didn't even look it up, because it wasn't on your personally biased and myopic radar screen. You cannot in a meaningful sense argue the academic merits because you use the MORON's approach to the whole issue - throw a bomb that assumes the opposite of reality, and assume the person whom you've just insulted will sit still for it.
Now, I'll let you explain why a person with a pervasive belief that leads them to suffer painful and fabulously expensive surgey that takes them out of the work force for months, for no reason other than that they "like it" or "believe that they are a man trapped in a woman's body" isn't suffering from a "disorder".
John, so in your words do you think homosexuality should be cured?
edit -- double post.
I'd leave that up to the individual. Indeed, if one is well adjusted and simply has a preference for consenting - adult, same-gender sexual activity, that probably wouldn't qualify as a "disorder" as the term is usually used. So, even if it could be easly changed by taking a simple, safe pill, I'd leave it up to the individual about whether he or she wanted to take the pill.
Completely up to them.
Here's the difference with "Transgendered", by a guy who gets it.
Dr. Richard Friedman article - excellent
"Most clinicians who have experience working with these children agree that the reason for the psychopathology is not simple social discrimination because the boys are feminized. There is disagreement among experts about what the criteria for the disorder presently called GID should be. There is consensus, however, that the children are psychiatrically disturbed. Elimination of the diagnosis would mean that patients now in this category would not be able to have their psychiatric treatment expenses reimbursed by insurance companies.
Social discrimination unfortunately is directed against people in many groups, some psychiatrically disturbed, some not. Psychiatrists, while being sensitive to the consequences of discrimination, should not delete psychiatric disorders from DSM simply because of such abuse."
He exposes one interesting point. Insurance coverage for "gender reassignment surgery". While certainly "oogy" to the rest of us, it may well prevent some of the more ill from killing themselves -- therefore probably medically necessary, and therefore often covered by insurance.
If it is "normal", no more insurance.
My junior year of high school ('89) we had a male goalie on the field hockey team. Sice field hockey was an all girls sport he didn't have the opportunity to play unless he played on a girl's team. The team had 2 rules:
1. He changed in the boys locker room.
2. He had to wear the same uniform as the rest of the team, a kilt.
He was willing to satisfy both criteria so he got to play, and I've got the year book photos to prove it. :wink:
why do I feel the need to qualify everything by saying; keep in mind I grew up in Vermont?