Originally Posted By Mr X ***I do not consider CHOOSING to be a different sex, a "minority".*** Do you consider homosexuals to be a minority?
Originally Posted By utahjosh I see nothing wrong with using the pronoun IT when you are not sure if you should us HE or SHE.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***I only converse with rational, normal people.*** Don't forget to include prejudiced bigots on your list... Someday, somehow I hope you'll look back and understand how nasty and hateful you are. The proof is right here in your words. But for now, I'm sure you'll take comfort in the idea that you somehow upset me (and yes, I'm upset at the gross prejudice you have displayed). Hopefully you'll understand at some point how hateful and nasty you have been here.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***I see nothing wrong with using the pronoun IT when you are not sure if you should us HE or SHE.*** Josh, you are better than that. It's a disgusting thing to say about a person. And, if you REALLY can't say (and this case is not so vague), you could always use "he or she", or "him or her", or something else like that. You don't refer to a human being as "it". Unless you are talking about a slave, perhaps. Or some other term for property, or for a "non-human". It's gross, inappropriate, and wrong.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***calm down, mr CAPS....... My, but you ARE controllable, aren't you?*** Far cry from the "beleaguered newbie". And only in a matter of hours! Really makes ya wonder.
Originally Posted By mele <<I see nothing wrong with using the pronoun IT when you are not sure if you should us HE or SHE.>> When in doubt, respect the person by calling them what they want to be called. Is that really so hard? Can you not muster up some compassion for these people? Does calling a transgendered person by the gender they want really take away so much from you that you can't refer to them as a human being? Is it really okay to dehumanize them and call them "its"? At it's best it's laziness, at it's worst, it IS hateful. In this case, you could call the person by their LEGAL gender, or how about by their name? General rule, if you don't want someone calling you, or your own child an "it", then don't call someone else an "it".
Originally Posted By imadisneygal ^^^To add to what Mele said about calling someone "him" or "her" based on their stated gender, which is absolutely correct, you could also use the terms "affirmed male" or "affirmed female" if you're so uncomfortable using the gender with which the person identifies. It is never, ever appropriate to use the term "it" when referring to a human being. Just ask. Or read. The person in the story is an affirmed male. Use him and he. Not she. Not her. And most certainly not "it." UtahJosh, I'm sort of surprised to see something so callous as your post come out of your fingers. You're usually so supportive of human rights, etc. There is no reason to not know what to use. You use what the person identifies with.
Originally Posted By utahjosh After reading the last few posts I do realize that using the pronoun "it" can be understood with hate behind it. I did not mean it with hate. I don't carry any hate in my heart, I really try to love my fellow man as best I can. I'll be more sensitive to my language that way. And I don't support the use of "it" when referring to a man or woman, no matter how confusing their gender issues may be.
Originally Posted By utahjosh I posted my first "it" post in haste without much thought behind it. My first thought was about an unborn baby. I consider an unborn baby a human life worth protecting, and I would never want to "dehumanize" one. Yet i'm not bothered by referring to that yet unknown-gendered life by "it" with no hate or malice behind it. That's where my first post came from.
Originally Posted By imadisneygal Gotcha. We just always called the boys "the baby." We didn't find out their sex until they saw the light of day in the delivery room!
Originally Posted By DAR Honest question, isn't the correct nomenclature Shim when describing such a person?
Originally Posted By imadisneygal No. It's not. You call the person whatever gender with which they identify. This person is an affirmed male. He is a he. He has female chromosomes, but he is a he. This whole "I still have a uterus and I'm going to use it" thing does no justice to other transgendered people because it implies that they're just confused which is not the truth. They aren't confused. They have a medical condition in which their sex and their gender do not align. So the short answer to your question is no. It's neither correct nor appropriate.
Originally Posted By imadisneygal Sometimes transgendered gets confused with transvestitism, too, and it's not the same. People who are transgendered are not simply cross-dressing. They're dressing appropriate to their gender. There are plenty of people who are not transgendered who are transvestites. They could be heterosexual or homosexual. They could be men or women. The point is that your expressed gender has nothing to do with cross-dressing per se. It's complicated no matter how many people want to pigeon hole it and just say it's not normal. It's a variant. And it's real.
Originally Posted By DAR Yeah I know about tranvestitism. I just always thought transgender was described with the term shim, which is now incorrect. So thanks for clearing that up. Now I'm wondering if I should ever feel guilty for playing Smear the Queer as a child. Before any freak outs occur let me explain the game. One person has a football, the remaining number of people playing have tackle said ball carrier. Smear the Queer was the naming because it rhymed. There was no malice behind it.
Originally Posted By utahjosh It is complicated, and people deserve to be treated with respect. In this case, I'm hard pressed to call this person a He. Especially when discussing situations on a discussion board. She was born with female parts, still uses them, by every definition she is female. Now, she feels differently, surgically changed part of her to appear more like a man, and I suppose (I really don't know much about this situation) wants to be called "he." I, personally, think it's silly, but would probably respect a friend or someone I meet enough to call them whatever they want.
Originally Posted By RC Collins disneyland1 >>WHY the HECK are they calling *IT* a MAN?????<< She is not an “itâ€. She is a human being with inherent worth. I disagree with some of her decisions, though (clearly). But I don’t think they should be illegal. ShivaThDestroyer >>It doesn't seem like they're hurting anyone and we have no evidence that this couple would be bad parents.<< They intentionally created a child in a situation where the child will not have a father, and that is wrong and harmful. Sorry, a woman pretending to be a man is not a father. And she hurt herself with the surgeries and hormones. DAR >>About a few years ago we had an individual who worked on my floor different department who was undergoing a sex change operation. According to people in (now) her department his wife threatned to leave him for another woman. So to be with his wife he decided to take the necessary steps to become a woman. (S)He finishes the process and guess what happened? His wife decided yeah I don't want to be with you regardless of who you are.<< Talk about a man’s wife having “them†in a jar! >>I don't have any idea how she didn't go completely and totally batcrap crazy and just completely throttle her ex-spouse is beyond me.<< He was messed up to begin with to agree to such a thing. Don’t like your partner as-is? Don’t marry them. Never expect your partner to change because you got married (except, perhaps, staying monogamous). They will change… they’ll get older and run-down – not necessarily more mature, or sober, or whatever. Mr X >>It's not nearly as cut and dried as you wish it were, RC Collins, and I think that you are looking at this through angry and prejudiced eyes for whatever reason, to put it mildly.<< Well if it isn’t cut and dried, then who are you to say I’m wrong? It’s all so murky, maybe I’m right? I wouldn’t wish that kind of confusion on anyone. But don’t expect me to go along. Mr X >>***I can understand that someone is attracted to someone of the same sex. Fine. (No, I’m not equating that with transgenderism, even though they often lobby together.)*** What's the meaning of this sentence? I get the impression you are trying to imply that homosexuality is okay, but that there is something "wrong" with people of trans gendered experience, so much so that homosexuals shouldn't associate with them.<< I didn’t want anyone to think I was equating homosexual behavior or feelings with pretending to be someone of the opposite sex (either by dress, hormones, or surgery), or “feeling†like someone of the opposite sex. They are two different things. That’s what I was saying. We see “LGBT†all of the time, but I think we ought not lump all of those together. >>Turn it around and say you don't agree with the whole "black" thing, and see how far it gets you.<< There is a difference from being born with a skin color and ACTIVELY PRETENDING to be someone of the opposite sex, going so far as to mangle your body. >>How is THAT person supposed to figure out who they are?<< Very few of these people were born with something wrong with their genitalia. I’m referring to people who are born with normal genitalia of one sex and decide to pretend to be someone of the opposite sex. >>Or, if you want to make the argument that "black" isn't a choice or whatever, try saying "I don't agree with the fat thing", and think about whether or not that makes you sound mean or hateful.<< Any obesity caused by overeating or lack of exercise (unless you were bedridden with injury) is a choice. I have extra weight, and I know exactly why I do. I should lose it. Yes, it is easier for some people to avoid obesity than others. It is still a choice for most of the obese. Imadisneygal: >>Someone who is born with sex characteristics and genetics of both sexes (ie: ovaries and a penis, or another combination of both sexual organs) is called intersexed (not hemaphrodite - that word is not used anymore in medicine or psychology). People who are intersexed often have additional chromosomes so they have the genetics of both sexes.<< Thanks for the update. I’ll try to remember that. >>Additionally, it bothers me to see someone say that they "disagree" with people who are transgendered. It's not something that's available to "disagree" with. It just is.<< I can’t disagree with anyone’s feelings. I can disagree with their actions. There’s a certain atheist libertarian-liberal talk show host who worked for many years on a sex/love call-in show, and who has met and interviewed transsexuals. He points out (and it is just his experience, but clearly he’s no conservative or Bible-thumper) that they never seem quite happy or satisfied. They always seem to think “just one more surgery†will make them complete. plpeters70: >>Which Scriptures would those be again?<< In my case, I’m referring to the Holy Bible, both “Old†and “New†Testaments. >>"There is a difference between murdering and killing. Who better to judge who deserves death than God?" But, of course, it's not usually God who's actually doing the killing, but some surrogate who claims that God gave him permission to kill.<< But if we have God or the Word of God explaining it is His will, then we know. ecdc >>But you start with several assumptions and work backwards from there.<< Everyone starts somewhere, including you. We’re here. How? I dare suggest that if anything now exists, then either something is eternal, or something not eternal came from nothing. Some say that the universe itself is eternal, but what we know about matter/energy and astronomy suggests otherwise. If you want to believe that something can spontaneously arise from nothing, then good luck functioning in the world. It is entirely reasonable to conclude that something (or someone) transcendent of the universe caused the universe. Wouldn’t such a powerful being be able to communicate and interact with us? Going back to an earlier point in this discussion, someone pointed to all of the evil in the world. Like many others, I take the reality of the difference between good and evil to be a clue that there is an ultimate source of good – God – that good and evil are not merely societal constructs. There’s Jesus Christ. I’ve never seen anyone with an explanation about Jesus that wasn’t one of these four: 1) He is a legend (meaning he didn’t exist or was a normal man with legendary stories surrounding him); 2) He was liar; 3) He was a lunatic (delusional); 4) He was/is Lord. #1 seems most popular these days among those who don’t believe. But what we know from Christian and non-Christian sources leads almost all serious scholars and critics to agree that Jesus was a real person. Based on the same sources, I have good reason to believe that: 1) Jesus died on a Roman cross and that 2) Many people saw/touched Jesus alive after this happened, transforming his disciples and convincing some who didn’t follow him during his earthly ministry. I’d say overcoming death points more to Lord than “liar†or “lunaticâ€. If there is a God, I can’t think of a better way to communicate with us then to become one of us and set an example for us. Finally, there’s the Bible, a collection of 66 books or letters, really. The Bible makes certain claims about itself. Either those claims are true, or they aren’t. If Jesus affirmed the Old Testament and promised the New Testament, then I think they are worth at least checking out. God has communicated with us in many ways, including through the earthly ministry and life of Jesus Christ, and through the Bible, which provides a lasting, objective form of communication. A person doesn’t need to wait for a personal mystical experience to learn how to fellowship with God; doesn’t even need someone in that fellowship to tell them anything face to face. – they can find a Bible and learn by reading. >>You assume, for example, that it is scripture (even though modern scholarship shows otherwise).<< Modern scholarship does nothing of the sort. >>There isn't, but some people would rather believe that they're somehow the right ones, the special ones, the different ones.<< So you don’t think you are right in your beliefs about God or morality? >>You're the same.<< People may appear to be the same as they both drive cars to their destinations – after all, we’re all humans – but if one car is heading over a cliff and the other a structurally sound bridge, I’d say there is quite a lot of difference. >>No, that's called one of thousands of excuses invented to explain away God's seeming powerlessness and aloofness.<< God is certainly not powerless nor aloof. Tell me – what could a God possibly do to show you otherwise? (Let me venture a guess – would it be changing something about the world YOU don’t like?) >>God hasn't made anything clear; if he had, it would be clear. It's absurd to somehow blame the listeners for just not getting the message (but those who believe like you picked it up ok - another convenience).<< Listeners don’t get messages all of the time, because they aren’t really listening or they don’t want to listen. This happens all of the time in everyday life. People can be in situations where they know that the right or sensible thing to do is – it can be very clear - and they still fail to do it. >>There is a difference between murdering and killing. Who better to judge who deserves death than God?<< >>Bible is replete with stories of people who heard God's command to kill and carried it out. Who are we to tell someone today that they can't do the same?<< If it is really God’s command, then I have no place telling someone not to follow God. But there are consequences to any action. God has made it clear to punish murderers, and if someone murders someone else, we should react accordingly. CLAIMING God told you to kill someone does not mean God really did tell you that, obviously. >>Why should we believe the Bible if it has stories of God telling people to kill, then not believe people who claim the same thing today?<< That doesn’t follow. I don’t believe the Bible *because* it records God commanding people to wipe out a thoroughly corrupt group of people (who sacrificed their own babies, by the way). I believe the Bible *and* the Bible contains instances where God commands specific people to carry out His specific judgment in a specific instance. I have no reason to believe God is telling a specific group to do this today with another nation. Your statement is like asking “Why should I believe George Washington was President of the United States, then not believe his is currently President of Peru?†>>I do think they need some exposure to other ideas, to the history of the Bible, comparative religion, education, etc.<< Many of us have all of that, and guess what? We have come to the conclusion that Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior, and that the Bible is authoritative when it comes to telling us who God is and how to follow Jesus. There are people out there who can’t understand how anyone else can come to different conclusions than they have, and they think it they repeat everything all over again, louder, the people who disagree with them will come around. There are plenty of Christians who make this mistake, but you seem to one of the non-Christians who make this mistake. >>From my perspective, the thing that separates western Christians from fundamentalist Muslims isn't their beliefs. It's education and prosperity. Put Christians in similar circumstances, and history has shown us they're capable of just as much violence.<< On the contrary, history has shown there is no equivalence between any form of orthodox (small “oâ€) Christianity and the Islamofascists. Have Christians sinned big time? Yes. But overall, there is a huge difference. Inquiry (beyond the shallowness provided in Sunday school) is usually discouraged, and information about the religion or organization that doesn't come from the organization itself is often seen as suspect and untrustworthy. Hmmm, not in the case of orthodox Christian churches. That tends to be true of the cults, though. Perhaps you should take a glance at Christian journals and research organizations before making such a statement. I’ll point out yet again some relevant Bible verses in this matter, because the Bible doesn’t say “just believe and accept without questionâ€: Acts 17:11, 1 Thessalonians 5:21, 1 Peter 3:15, 1 John 4:1. That’s four different writers. >>I'm more than familiar with the one-liners that will make the faithful nod their heads in church - "God answers all prayers, but sometimes the answer is no..."<< I used this in response to the notion that God always does whatever we ask for (such as healing us right now). There are preachers who tell people He will, and they are lying, at least according to the Bible. >>I think the point is, Josh, that it's typically religious people that fight the most for life, even if the quality of that life is in question.<< In my case, that is because I believe life is sacred, not death. Death is the absence of life. While it is a normal part of life now, I don’t think it will always be. There are a lot of people who believe it is fine to starve someone to death because when they die, they’ll “be in a better placeâ€. How do these people know that? I do believe in Heaven, but that is based on my belief in Jesus Christ and the reliability of the Bible. I don’t know anyone else’s heart or their relationship with God, and so have no idea if they are going to a better place or not. In the case of close family and friends, I may know enough about them to make a good guess as to whether they know Jesus or not. >>But I think one could make the case that a fetus would be a lot better off in heaven than in a crack addict's home.<< That’s not our call to make. Otherwise, we’d be committing mass suicide (as some cultists have done). God is the author of life. >>I agree with pecos bill's point, that religious people often see death as a punishment, or a tragedy. If they really believed their religion, all death should be welcomed, even encouraged. I know that most see suicide as a sin, and I get that.<< As I wrote earlier in this post, death is not good. Thankfully, Jesus has overcome sin and death. I do look forward to Heaven (should the Lord not return before I die), but I look forward even more to being resurrected. >>It strikes me as a small, meaningless sacrifice for a God to die and go to paradise or heaven.<< It’s meaningless for God to condescend to take on a human nature, live a perfect sinless life, and then be mocked, brutally beaten, and executed by His depraved creatures? Jesus was the one person who didn’t deserve death. There was also the spiritual pain of taking on all those sins – but that is probably something you ignore entirely. >>After all, science isn't to be trusted - it gives us evolution.<< A theistic worldview is what gave rise to the scientific method. Science can be trusted to teach us much about the world, but not to make decisions for us. Scientists can tell us how some things happen, or how we can do some something, but that doesn’t make them an authority on whether or not those things should be done. Regarding evolution – don’t these threads always touch on this? – My beef is not with evolution or science. My beef is philosophical naturalism. dshyates >>the big bang<< Which actually is highly compatible with the Bible. >>and cloning.<< Cloning is twinning. No big deal. But actively killing human beings, no matter how small, is wrong. Human beings, from a civil perspective, all should have their human rights honored, regardless of whether they are the result of cloning or not. I think turning human beings into property to be bought, sold, or experimented on without their consent is a bad idea.
