Hi Steve,

I don't pretend to understand transsexuals having never met one or having any similar experience, which I could transpose to gain insight into them. However I certainly wouldn't condemn them out of hand (you probably would've guessed that eh). Now for a few observations.

"Sodomy Lobby" - the last time you used this term when you cited a case about a lesbian and now for a male to female transsexual. It's a pointless pejorative and seems to be used a little inappropriately. Last time I compared it to calling a high school prom "Fuck Night". Not all socialisation is about the sexual acts imagine or real that you associate with them just as a school prom isn’t about sex.

Genital mutilation - sound awful doesn't it. Why then does the US routinely mutilate the genitals of the majority of male children without condemnation by you? If this is the reason for your objection perhaps you might want to start with genital mutilation that is more commonly practised in the US.

You talk about taking hormones to affect Ms McBeth's body. Are you just finishing off an article on hormone replacement therapy. Many post menopausal women take hormones which among other things stops the effects of growing hair (women produce testosterone too you know). Is this a real problem for you or just a conceit to bash Ms McBeth.

You believe this to be sexual assault - well on that one I'm really not sure you're playing with a full deck. Comparing sexual assault to Ms McBeth teaching in a school really is bizarre and to me devalues to genuine trauma of what most people would term sexual assault.

I wouldn't call anyone a homophobe who criticises Ms McBeth since I reserve that word for those for those who dislike/hate gays and lesbian. I don't know what the term is but it's not homophobe. Actually I would disagree with Ms McBeth when she refers to the issue of sexuality - the issue is gender not sexuality as far as I'm concerned.

Now for the bit where I agree with you. Transgender people are urged to stay in the same environment, while they under go their transition for their own sakes (as I understand it) so perhaps Ms McBeth had been told by her doctors to stay at the same school. Perhaps she'd worked there for decades and felt she had a right to stay - I agree with you in that Ms McBeth wouldn't need to say anything for the children in her class to know her story - others would've ensured that was the case. It may have been better for her to move to another school where she could teach without this becoming a central issue and without her classroom becoming a battlefield for any lobby. I'm not sure she would've been allowed to move without it becoming an issue elsewhere, but it may well have been a solution.

Having said that since those who knew her (as opposed to those that don't ie us) - the 5 members of the school board - wanted to retain her services I suspect she is a pretty good teacher and they may have decided she was worth keeping in class because good teachers are hard to find.

I wish her well in what will be a difficult time, who knows maybe some of her students will look back and see someone who didn't break under tremendous pressure and take inspiration and go on to great things. If I were placing a bet however I'd put it on her being forced out within 6 months.

oh my! Steve, why did you have to post that picture. It is an outrageous abuse of power by this school board to foist this person onto the class. This McBeth says that children are wide open to change, and it's the parents who "fear". This really pisses me off. Children are impressionable and pliable, yes. That doesn't mean they should be forced to deal with anything an adult throws their way. As for the "fearful parents allegation, that's McBeth's way of labeling them as ignorant,unsophisticated bigots. Hey McBeth! Understand this. Parents who object to your teaching the same kids as a "woman"", that you did as a man, are not afraid of you. They just don't want their children to be utterly confused about gender.

Hi Lisa,

if Steve had said what you did I wouldn't really have much of a problem with this post.

does anyone here remember what it was like to be in school and have a substitute teacher?

a competent, transgendered teacher would have seemed positively normal compared to the majority of the subs i had in school.

brit - I think the word you're searching for is "transgenderphobe"

Daftright you are a phobiaphobe.

In the previous "Gay" thread from last week, folks were referencing animal homosexuality. I'll abstain from commenting on its relevance to the points being made but this story was just forwarded to me that was very on topic. Gay penguins...who would have thought?

http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_1275591.html

Beware the gay penguin lobby and their sinister agenda!

On July 3, 2001 a New Jersey appeals court found that a transgender physician may pursue sex and disability claims against a former employer that terminated her when she began to undergo the process of sex reassignment. Based on the employer’s actions, the physician filed a discrimination claim under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination alleging that the termination was based on her sex and disability, among several other claims.

A trial court dismissed her claims saying that transsexualism was not a recognized disability and that transgender people are excluded from coverage under the state non-discrimination law. The appeals court disagreed and reinstated her claims (Enriquez v. West Jersey Health Systems).

Precedence is against the school board. Which is worse -- the Eagleswood Township School Board losing a court battle that wastes money that could be better spent in the classroom, or letting a transgender substitute teacher who has done her job well teach occasionally in primary classrooms? Even if one is not a fan of transgender people as teachers, the choice by any fiscally responsible school board member had to be clear. If the board had voted not to hire the teacher because she was transgender, parents informed that every dollar spent on fighting against precedence would come out of the classroom would be howling.

I was going to say something, but w_b stole my thunder.

A Poem:

Come Faries, come Buggers, come Eunuchs exotic

Come running, come running you anal erotic

With Soft little hands and soft little bums

Come O castratae unnatual ones!

68 AD Petronias

Petronias Albter, DOA '69 AD

This is a little more level-headed take on the situation:

Beliefnet.com, NY, USA http://www.beliefnet.com/blogs/idolchatter/2006/03/dolly-parton-traveling-through.html

Monday, March 06, 2006

Idol Chatter - Religion & Pop Culture Blog

Dolly Parton: Traveling Through Transamerica

If most of you are anything like my roommates and me, you were too busy staring at Dolly Parton's crazy outfit and impossible breast-to-waist ratio to pay attention to what she was singing at the Oscars last night. But Dolly was there to perform "Travelin' Thru," her song from the "Transamerica" soundtrack, which was nominated for Best Original Song. (She already won once in this category, with the theme song from her movie "Nine to Five").

In "Transamerica," Desperate Housewife Felicity Huffman plays Bree, a male-to-female transsexual on a cross-country road trip with the son she never knew she had. And a lot of people think Dolly Parton looks like a drag queen, so it's a perfect fit, right? Once I stopped gawking at Dolly's platform shoes, I started listening to the words of her song. In a Dolly Parton song, it's not at all unusual to hear rhymes about Jesus. But invoking Jesus in a song about a transsexual? Now, that's news.

"Travelin' Thru" was written specifically for the movie. The lyrics ("I'm just a weary pilgrim trying to find my own way home / Oh, sweet Jesus, if you're out there, keep me ever close to you") and could be about any traveler on any path. But knowing the plot of the film makes the lyrics come into focus. The song is about a person who wants to find acceptance after having gender-reassignment surgery. When Dolly sings "we've all been crucified, and they nailed Jesus to the tree," she's letting Bree's voice speak through her. Despite facing humiliation and scorn, Bree always trusts that she has made the right decision.

The lines "God made me for a reason, and nothing is in vain / redemption comes in many shapes and many kinds of pain" echo loudly. Bree is defiant against the detractors who tell her that she is a freak who can never be accepted by God and society. In fact, Dolly seems to be making the argument that if God can make men and women in His own image, God can make transgendered people, too. The "keep me ever close to you" refrain is a reminder that Jesus loves all his children, even the outcasts. Calling Bree a "pilgrim" applies a classic American symbol to someone who is blazing a new trail in America. The 17th-century pilgrims wanted religious freedom, and 21st-century Bree wants her own freedom.

Although Huffman received an acting nomination for "Transamerica," the film isn't anywhere close to being as iconic or controversial as "Brokeback Mountain." Host Jon Stewart and Oscar winners like George Clooney and Ang Lee got attention for making political comments last night. But Dolly got her point across in a subtler way. Her song was further proof that not every political statement needs to be made with a sledgehammer. This argument for diversity and religious acceptance for sexual minorities may have missed my ears the first time around, but the song will keep going long after the image of Dolly's teased hair escapes my memory.

posted by Lilit @ 3:52 PM

"The song is about a person who wants to find acceptance ..."

Everyone wants to find acceptance, or at least a great vast majority of everyone. Having your genitals cut off has nothing to do with the matter, though admitedly it may make things harder for you...but hey....Yeah....that's kinda that.

"Despite facing humiliation and scorn..."

NEVER knew that. Ever. Having a naturally occuring genitalia is a well known immunity to scorn and humilation. Oh wait I'm being sarcastic...No that's everyone too. It sounds like maybe Bree (and the writer of this article to boot) are having problems coping with the realities of life.

"Bree always trusts that she has made the right decision."

Which is a wonderful statement, where you get to choose your own meaning.

If you like what he/she's doing, he's 'Brave'.

If you don't like what he's doing, he's a 'Stubborn ass'. Allways trusting that your decisions were right doesn't actually make them right per se, it just makes you very frustrating to people who disagree.

"His own image, God can make transgendered people, too."

Yes he can. Except in this case he didn't. God screwed up? Packaged the wrong goods?

God can make tiny penises and gigantic penises too, but when god makes a tiny one and someone doesn't like it (because it's humiliating and attracts scorn?) and brings a swedish pumping device into the matter, does he say God created him as a man with a big penis in the body of a man with a little penis? Did god create a man with an adjustable slide penis?

How about with nose jobs? Tonselectomys? Appendicitis?

"The "keep me ever close to you" refrain is a reminder that Jesus loves all his children, even the outcasts."

Assuming Jesus isn't just 2000 year old worm food, then you may have a point. It's all well and good if Jesus loves you, but that has very little to do with anything from my point of view.

"The 17th-century pilgrims wanted religious freedom, and 21st-century Bree wants her own freedom."

Yes....'Freedom from reality' is what it seems like to me.

Yeah... well...

I would have to say I agree that the school board should not have hired William/Lilly back... at least not so long as he/she was teaching the same students he/she taught last year. I wouldn't have a problem with it if the board had waited several years so that the student body was fully turned over. That's just a heavy burden to place on students. Furthermore, school is about learning and learning requires eliminating distractions. I think this qualifies as a pretty blatant distraction.

For the record, I'm accepting of homosexuality but surgically altering one's gender is a completely different topic that I'm not comfortable with. I know very little about the "trans-gender" community but it seems to me like a gay individual trying to insert themselves into the heterosexual community and I can tell you I would be pretty irate if I was dating a woman only to find out she had once been a man. That seems pretty deceitful to me.

In some situations, the tendency of adult males to be effeminate, gay, or transgendered is due to a disruption of their endocrine system during fetal development, caused by their mother's exposure to prescribed drugs such as Diethylstilbestrol (DES) or industrial pollutants such as dioxins, which mimic the effects of estrogen -- which results in a 'permanently feminized' male.The endocrine systems of these individuals never became fully masculine and exists in varied levels of feminization, which requires a mix of male and female hormones to operate normally. These changes are made during fetal development and are irreversable. These men often become transsexuals, as their endocrine (hormonal) system is female but their outward appearance is male. This information has been confirmed in dozens of studies on endocrine disruptors and is also buried in the 2001 EPA Reassessment of Dioxin. For more information on endocrine disruption: http://www.epa.gov/ncea/pdfs/dioxin/part2/drich5.pdf http://www.envirohealthaction.org/upload_files/enddisprimer.pdf http://www.ourstolenfuture.org http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dioxin The potential for dioxins to cause human reproductive and developmental harm has been recognized for nearly 20 years. To address the issue, in 1991, then President, George Bush Sr. launched an EPA investigation into the effects of Dioxin compounds. This ten-year investigation was intended to clear the chemical industry of any wrong-doing. The report was completed in 2001. However, industry lawyers -- the same ones that represented the cigarette industry -- along with foot-dragging by President Bush and the EPA are keeping the Dioxin Reassessment from ever seeing the light of day. In 2001, President Bush joined 50 other countries in Stockholm and signed a treaty banning, limiting the use of, and encouraging the clean-up of, Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) -- which includes Dioxin compounds. The treaty mandates were required to become law by May of 2004. However, President Bush has refused, under pressure from the chemical industry, to ratify the actions called for in the treaty that he signed in 2001. Also, what about androgen insensitivity syndrome (AIS)? This is when a "male" does not respond to testosterone during development. Genetic analysis would indicate the person is a male, but outwardly she appears female. So I ask, what sex is she? What about persons who suffer from tetragametic chimera? This is when a person is made up of two sets of DNA, often one DNA is female and one DNA set is male. What sex is this person? Society as a whole needs to learn that sex and gender are diverse and that there are gray areas in-between male and female that do not fit the tidy definitions of "male" and "female." This is the argument that will make laws banning same-sex marriages as discriminatory in the most basic way, by providing for the rights of one group, while denying the rights of others, through no fault or choice of their own. Our notion of what defines sex, or if it even matters, needs to be reconsidered.

Lauren, the response to your post is going to be overwhelmingly negative. I posted a lot of similar information last week, including exactly the same question you asked about AIS. There is a complete denial of genetic or physiological involvement by the "conservative camp" on this blog. It's all about choice they say. Well... they're on the losing end of that debate because geneticists are proving otherwise even as we speak.

AIS was the subject of an episode of "House" recently.

OOOOoOOooooohh now I get it! Transexuals are Bush's fault!!! So obvious! Of course!

Sorry...my genetics make me sarcastic.

It seems hypocritical to me to hear people claim that transgender people aren't facing reality when they themselves profess to believe in God. In case anyone hasn't noticed, this God guy hasn't been recorded to have performed any "miracles" since the age when people were intelligent and educated enough to know that what the Bible says and The Church tells them is myth and propaganda. A lot of Jews lost their faith in World War II and for good reason: they had ample proof that their god had either abandoned them -- or hadn't existed in the first place. And if their god does't exist, the Christians' god certainly doesn't, either.

So, be careful when you say that people whose views you disagree with "aren't facing reality" when you yourself believe in what amounts to fairy tales about an omnipotent, omniscient being who you think cares about what's on the minds of the millions of people who pray to Her, Him, It, or Them.

I never said it was only about choice. Lauren sure knows her disorders! But that's just it. They aren't the norm. So no Lauren. Society doesn't need to learn that sex and gender are diverse. Your diversities are abnormalities. They are no argument for same-sex marriage. Heterosexuals aren't a "group", they are as humans were meant to be. No reconsidering necessary.

Yes, except I don't beleive in god.

And in case you forgot (you seem like the short memory sort) I am the one claiming they aren't facing reality.

So....You got nuttin, boy.

John Boswell, in the book Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality, offers an understanding of how ancient people in Rome, Greece, Europe and the Jewish states viewed sexuality. The language regarding intersex, transgender and homosexual people is frequently interchangeable in ancient cultures; all such people fall under the common Biblical terms for "eunuch." In our age, we tend to think eunuchs are men whose testicles have been removed, but that is a incomplete interpretation of the term.

Homosexuality, hermaphrodism and transgenderism were, to the ancient mind inter-related and merely degrees of a spectrum. The term "eunuch" included anyone who did not or could not use sex for reproduction. This included the thousands of eunuchs surgically altered as servants and slaves, homosexuals, hermaphrodites (intersexed), and the transgendered. In ancient Judaism no one incapable of reproduction could be considered ritually pure and was denied access to the temple, whether for biological or behavioral reasons -- they did not perceive these as mutually exclusive.

This view was challenged and changed, and actually abhorred by Christianity.Ancient people would view an effeminate personality to be the "nature" of an individual in the same way as they would view the "nature" of a mixed genital (intersex) body.

With this in mind, here's what the Bible says about Eunuchs:

"For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb; and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men; and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it." --Matthew 19:12

For thus saith the LORD unto the eunuchs that keep my Sabbaths, and choose the things that please me, and take hold of my covenant; even unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters: I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off. Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the LORD, to serve him, and to love the name of the LORD, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the Sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant; even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people. The Lord GOD which gathereth the outcasts of Israel saith, Yet will I gather others to him, beside those that are gathered unto him. --Isaiah 59:4-8

The laws in this country do make allowances for those who were born different or who are different by circumstance. For instance, it is illegal to hunt with a crossbow during archery season in many states. Having said that, many states also make an exception for those who are physically disabled in one arm and will allow them to hunt with a crossbow. The law requires that business provide handicapped access. The law requires that business provide handicapped parking. When you're driving your automobile down the highway, it's illegal to have headphones on because it limits your ability to hear yet the law allows deaf people to drive regardless of their inability to hear. The law requires that hospitals, courts, etc provide alternate means of communication such as brail and sign language. There are plenty of cases where the law allows for people who are born different.

The difference is that all the above mentioned "abnormalities" are not contrary to deeply rooted Christian morality. Homosexuality is. Whether you're Christian or not, most of us have been taught Christian values passed down through the generations and that is what sticks. If you eliminate the Christian element, there is very little basis for describing homosexuality as immoral.

The funny thing to this whole "abnormal" reasoning though is that there are actually more gay and lesbian individuals than there are blind people. There are more gay and lesbians than there are people disabled in one arm. There are more gay and lesbians than there are for most of the "abnormalities" that the law makes an exception for. Therefore, being "abnormal" does not necessitate an exclusion from the rights and privileges offered to the majority.

Brit,

Regarding the "Sodomy Lobby" deal: Transexuality is a part of the sodomy lobby agenda -- GLBT, get it. The acronym GLBT encompases all of the deviant forms of sexual behavior the Sodomy Lobby seeks to normalize. Hence, the Sodomy Lobby is foursquare in favor of using the neuter McBeth as their poster child.

For those repeatedly going back to the Bible to look for authority on this subject. I think that what people believe and thought about biology, psychology and genetics 2000 years ago is frankly absurd. Would anyone here go to a doctor of 2000 years ago over a modern doctor because they had a greater insight and understanding – No. Mendel suggested his most basic ideas on genetics in 1865 so insights from biblical times are worthless. To be fair I wouldn’t look to Professor D Parton for great insight either.

Hi Lisa,

You say

Heterosexuals aren't a "group", they are as humans were meant to be.

Please give your references for the knowledge you believe you have, in that this is how humans were meant to be. “Meant to be” implies intention, which I think you can only rest on your religious beliefs. Should people not buy into your version of Christianity (as I don’t) your remarks are superfluous. As an aside I would point out that Jesus (according to the Bible) never made any comments about sexuality or gender identity (and of course these issue were about at the time), but most definitely did make critical comments about people using their religious beliefs to condemn others.

Hi Steve,

You missed my point a little. You continually refer to the "sodomy lobby" I was pointing out that neither lesbians nor male to female transsexuals were capable of sodomy. Moreover I was pointing out that the gratuitous use of the word sodomy is not necessarily related to the activity of many gay men (certainly younger gay people). Calling a GLBT school club a sodomy club is silly, since the vast vast majority of the activity in that club is not related to anal sex, just as the vast majority of activity of high school kids dating is not related to sex. This is why I would say calling a junior prom "fuck night" is both excessively crude and inaccurate, but it would be consistent with your practice of repeated use of the term sodomy lobby.

Having said that I do think the groups involved in a GLBT organisations make very strange bedfellows (sorry about the image there). There is very little commonality between gays, lesbians and transsexuals other than the response they get from certain groups and the isolation and oppression they face particularly when coming out.

I suspect you would disagree with this and maintain that all three are suffering from psychological disorders and therefore this is their commonality. I think you can appreciate that this is not their position and this is not why they groups themselves together. They group because they are dealing with a common attack, not because they are variations of a theme.

Hi Bill and MJ,

Homo-erotic poetry Bill and I noticed you MJ on another thread urging on someone called “MuscleDaddy”. Are you the people Steve believes “decides” their sexuality? ;-)

Hi SF,

*sheepishly hands back thunder*

Sorry I just saw some thunder laying about I didn’t realise it was yours.

-----------------------------------------------

Now I'm off to look up the sexual habits of penguins - something I didn't expect I'd be doing when I got up this morning.

Hi Brit! Well, sure, as a Catholic I believe that God's plan was for a man and a woman to join together. But, it is also true that for the survival of a species they must procreate. That means that heterosexuality would be the design of nature as well as God. Brit, if you are implying that I am condemning gays, I'm not. Jesus preached to love the sinner, but NOT the sin. Cheers!

Hi Lisa,

Well in nature of course there are many examples of species where not all members of that species reproduce - from ants to blind mole rats. Of course this is also true of humans - there have been many people who have lived full lives and not reproduced -some of which may have been gay/lesbian, but most of which haven't. Indeed child rearing takes up so much time that it can easily be argued that we wouldn't have developed anywhere near the level we have without such individuals (perhaps we may as a species have died out without additional adults to hunt, gather food etc in lean times).

I'll give you one example - during WWII Alan Turing broke the German enigma code by using the first primitive computers. He probably saved more allied lives and contributed to the allied victory more than any other individual, not to mention the fact that he developed some of the basic ideas that enable us to live in the computer era and communicate across the Atlantic. He had no children, yet he contributed massively to the war effort and who knows possible to mankind’s survival in years to come (if it's not unreasonable to conjecture that computers may come up with something that saves the whole species in years to come like stopping a meteorite hitting the earth and snuffing us dinosaur like from the world). He didn't have children because he was gay - of course after the war when he returned to Cambridge to resume teaching Maths the police persecuted him because he was gay and he committed suicide - so much for gratitude. The survival of individuals or a species is NOT whole dependent on every member reproducing and there are definite advantages for this not being the case.

On you condemning gays I wasn't presuming you were, but I was pointing out that Jesus didn't even condemn the "sin" let alone the "sinners". He did condemn a number of other sins including people twisting religion for their own ends. It's just an observation, but maybe I have a speck in my eye when I look at Christianity and the teachings of Jesus.

So let me get this straight.....Conservative Christians are straight and happy with their genital packages because their parents and their school teachers made them be that way?

Yes.

Had all those Conservative Christians been born in Sparta, they'd be pagans who slaughtered women and and children for a living and buggered each others bums at night (to promote morale and unit cohesion).

Same people. Different place and time.

Oh.

They'd also be pedophiles too.

MJohnson.....seems to me that even though they are Christian Conservatives there is more than just a little bit of bum buggering and pedophilia going with them in Kansas, they don't even need a Sparta upbringing. Everytime one of them gets freaky blasty about homosexuals it eventually comes out that they have been secretly buggering bums. Slaughtering women and children for a living is called Iraq now

WB, I'd have to say I like what you wrote about Alan Turing and that whole line of reasoning.

TraceTard, We know what's on the left side - where's the diarrhea that inevitably follows.