The NYT reports on a growing "problem" in the lesbian community – descrimination against former lesbians who have had operations to become men. You see, they have "joined the enemy"
“It just saddens me to see so many of our strong butch women giving up their womanhood to be a man,” one friend said.
The sentiment was a tamer version of what many other women wrote on lesbian blogs and Web sites in the weeks after the episode [of the soap opera The L Word] was broadcast last spring. Many called for the Max character to be killed off next season. One suggested dispatching him “by testosterone overdose.”
Case in point – the Michigan Womyn’s Music Festival has a ban on transgendered people of EITHER sex – so if you were ever a man, or were a woman but are now a man, you are NOT welcome. In fact, the requirement limits attendance to "women born as women and living as women."
Only true lesbians must apply, I guess. I guess if you are now a man, you are no longer a lesbian. Right? It reminds me of that old joke, "I’m a lesbian caught in a man’s body."
But what if you are now a woman, who used to be a man? Do you have to love women to go to a lesbian event? I guess so. But the MWMF is very specific – they only want natural women who love other women.
This gender confusion brings up all kind of other issues. Like if a former lesbian (now a man) wants to marry a woman, is that really hetero marriage or same sex? What if "he" wants to marry a man? Is that hetero, or same sex?
If somone who has undergone gender-reassignment surgery, and they apply to a single gender school, can the school disallow them, or measure by genetics and not whatever outward gender manifestation the person chooses?
Is a person’s gender merely a social construct, and your genes don’t matter (that is, who cares if you are XX, if you want to live as a man, and have the hormone treatments to prove it, are you therefore a man, legally?). How deep into confusion and self-deception can we really go?
You know, while transgender illnesses do bring up many practical questions, the actual practical answer is that, for legal purposes, your biology is your gender (and btw, XXY is still considered male, sine most are usually capable of normal erection and ejaculation, and female breasts usually subside after the height of puberty). And when a biological woman marries a biological man, that’s considered marriage. Other partnerships are illnesses.
Al Mohler has a podcast and a post about this.
Couple of quick points, the most important being…
1. I would argue that hormones are a FAR better determinant of gender than are organs. So for the transgendered man with a penis whose body is flooded with estrogen, and for the transgendered woman with a vagina whose body is flooded with testosterone, I'd argue that their actual genders are different than what their organs tell us.
2. Congratulations Seeker, you've once again proven that liberals are idiots. Big deal. Christians are idiots too. The ultimate point here isn't the alleged rightness of Christianity, but that these women's festivals are stupid. However, perhaps on the periphery of all this is one simple fact: your opinion doesn't matter. You object to the notion that women are equal to men, so why you think that your opinion about who should or shouldn't be going to feminist festivals is really beyond me.
3. I'll never understand why this is complicated for the lesbians or the Seekers: the point is everybody getting treated equally. That's what matters. Neither the lesbians nor Seeker are proposing this. Some of us, who are more decent, are.
I would argue that hormones are a FAR better determinant of gender than are organs
Well, I was mainly arguing that genetics were the main thing to look at, but I mentioned morphology (organs) for XXY because the genetics in that case are unclear. And since the man has a penis, I'd say that he had enough testosterone to make that happen. The problem is, he also has temporary teats. But they are temporary, since he has not enough estrogen (since no ovaries) to actually make that happen. So I'd say that you don't really have a natural case where you have male organs but a majority of female hormones.
you've once again proven that liberals are idiots. Big deal. Christians are idiots too.
Well, that's your conclusion. What I think I have intimated, maybe even proven, is that liberal morality and it's approach to sex and gender is "idiotic."
these women's festivals are stupid.
Actually, I don't think they are stupid, I think they are a great forum for similar people to gather and share their commonness. It's called "right of assembly" ;)
You object to the notion that women are equal to men
Um, no. That's your stereotpe talking (as usual).
why you think that your opinion about who should or shouldn't be going to feminist festivals is really beyond me.
You are right, my opinion may not be worth much, but if it is right, it is quite important. You are always saying that things are beyond you. You should really raise your esteem of your own mental abilities.
I'll never understand
Interpreted: "I am not willing to understand."
Seeker,
Just to clarify for you, I understand you completely. You have a moral vision, and believe that it ought to be forced upon everybody else. You believe this because you believe your moral vision guarantees you "heaven" and thus you're forced to take these absolutist stances. So, thanks, but you're not that complicated, and neither are your positions. When you take all of your cues from a book that's 2000 years old, I guess that's what you end up with.
Seeker, what does God say about hermaphrodites getting married to other hermaphrodites? Is it wrong or permissible? What if a man who was once a woman got married to a woman who was once a man? I agree with Sam here,
I'll never understand why this is complicated for the lesbians or the Seekers: the point is everybody getting treated equally.
Oh, Seeker one more question. Is your stance on homosexuality a personal conviction or an objective morality?
Sam,
If you believe your pejorative description of what I think and why, then you truly are captive to your stereotypes and have barely heard a word I've said. The innacurate and highly spun tale you tell is truly astonishing in its ignorance of what has been said here.
What I find interesting about seeker's remarks is not his usual snarkiness, but how he has redefined "illness." Now, apparently, he defines it as anything he dislikes or finds distasteful (to put it politely):
"And when a biological woman marries a biological man, that's considered marriage. Other partnerships are illnesses."
Taking a page from his book, I now define homophobia and christianism as illnesses. Obviously, they are disfunctions of the most profound variety, as they manifestly illustrate a flight from reality. Christianists like seeker seem to be able to swallow oceans of astoundingly fantastic notions (without a drop of evidence) while choking on the real phenomena of sexual variations provided for us by nature. What a strange man! Pathetic, as well.
Louis,
This is what we refer to as "Seeker's Total Inability To Live and Let Live." This is a problem common to Christians, who believe that because theirs is the only way to this imaginary "Heaven" that they're always speaking so highly of (but having no evidence of whatsoever), everybody else ought to be following their own rules.
The rest of us believe that there's nothing wrong with Seeker's existence, or his religion, or his beliefs…as long as he keeps them to himself, and off the books of law. In other words, if he objects to marriages of men and women who were once women and men (although why he objects, I cannot imagine), that's fine. But that doesn't mean his word should be law. If only Christians could find it in their hearts to take care of their own problems and stop trying to solve everybody else's alleged problems. Which, incidentally, are more often than not harmless.