Transgendered/Crossdressing

[Chesto]

rob_b... take a few deep breaths and read, again, what Vagrant has actually said. You've done, in technicolour, what I also did when being foolish enough to react to something after a sleepless night. I still don't agree with V. about whether or not this is a suitable topic. But, wide awake, I can see that he has given this more thought than I have and that his opinions are valid, even if not my own. Give it another go, rob. And keep it civilised. Please.

[Malchik]

No flaming please rob_b.

 

The world would be a boring place if we all thought the same way but I do think you misread Vagrant's post anyway.

[ResidentWeevil2077]

Vagrant, you exactly proved my point, that you and others who think like you are so closed off to everyone else. And why is it that I need to back up my thoughts with logic and reasoning? This is precisely the kind of attitude that keeps everyone segregated. How is it that what I think is my belief as well? When it comes to human rights, I don't believe, I KNOW. Logic and reasoning? Pah, that's a poor excuse for your own blatant ignorance.

 

You're still so closed off that you yourself can't see how wrong you are. How in the bloody hell is it that we need "research" to accept people like Corr and homosexual people? Human rights does not need ANY kind of research, and thinking that way is blatant ignorance and utter folly. And now, I see your trying to cover your arse. It doesn't work, not with me, because you know that I know you're wrong. Quite frankly, I don't see the reasoning behind what you think.

 

You wanna know something about me? I used to think like you, I never accepted people who were "different" from me. I got so used of the way society portrayed such people. However, I changed my way of thinking. I realized that they're no different from me at all, and are capable of everything I can, or perhaps even exceed my abilities. Because I understood. I had to understand. I needed to make that change. But I digress...

 

...I'm ashamed that someone who is respected as you would make these statements, but I guess I thought wrong. It's not me who's not allowing people like Corr to lead happier lives, it's people like you who are unwilling to accept at all. Because of logic and reasoning. Don't use that on me again, because I'll have none of it. The only thing I'm closed off to is logic and reasoning, because that's what makes people blind.

[Malchik]

rob_b drop it now please. From my reading of Vagrant's posts he is not making any statements of his views on people's sexuality but that he does not believe a sensible discussion on the subject is possible on this forum. Whether you agree or not, he is entitled to express his opinion. You may also express yours but other than a rather idiosyncratic use of the word 'perversion' - which I dislike whatever the excuse - (Vagrant is intelligent enough to know that the word is definitely shaded towards being offensive to many) - you are reading into his posts more than he said.

 

And Vagrant I am also asking you to stop posting here. Your argument for using the word perversion smacks to me of sophistry. Whether it is or not we've heard enough.

[Marcus Wolfe]

Cross dressing is completely acceptable if you do it for the right reasons...........

 

 

 

(picking up drunken lesbians) :D

[DarkAnsem]

@xeanander right. thank you for precising XD

 

as always, virtue lies in between. vagrant stands for a more conservative, relatively old-fashioned way of thinking (the exaggeration of the phenomena came with an erroneous consideration about HIV, something that also happened quite recently and was immediately uncovered as an abusive statement) and a corageous, hot, perhaps rash, way of tought from rob_b. sorry vagrant, but I was touched by his impetuous apology of human rights (being a student of Law myself).

 

what IMO is the core is the prejudice inculcated in heads about certain things (not necessairily this). one must be sophisticated about certain matters in life, wheter he's involved or not.

 

@rob_b keep up fighting for what you believe in. your reckless honesty is far more pure than the politically correct, even if you will encounter difficulties.

[ResidentWeevil2077]

@xeanander right. thank you for precising XD

 

as always, virtue lies in between. vagrant stands for a more conservative, relatively old-fashioned way of thinking (the exaggeration of the phenomena came with an erroneous consideration about HIV, something that also happened quite recently and was immediately uncovered as an abusive statement) and a corageous, hot, perhaps rash, way of tought from rob_b. sorry vagrant, but I was touched by his impetuous apology of human rights (being a student of Law myself).

 

what IMO is the core is the prejudice inculcated in heads about certain things (not necessairily this). one must be sophisticated about certain matters in life, wheter he's involved or not.

 

@rob_b keep up fighting for what you believe in. your reckless honesty is far more pure than the politically correct, even if you will encounter difficulties.

Thx Ansem, but what I say is true, even if I'm shunned as much as those I defend. But with a little effort, I know we can shatter the walls that have been built around this fortress of utter misery and wanton logic.

[Vagrant0]

And Vagrant I am also asking you to stop posting here. Your argument for using the word perversion smacks to me of sophistry. Whether it is or not we've heard enough.

I apoligize for my usage of the word, but saw no better to fit what I was referring to. I did however clarify it so that the distinction would be there. As I have stated, I am not making any moral claims, in fact I have pretty much stated my stance on the subject.

 

Personally I say whatever you want to do in your own home, as long as it doesn't create trouble for others, is none of our business.

 

It is neither an acceptance nor a comdemnation of behavior or those who take part in that behavior. Forgive me for being "old-fashioned" but I do not see where a person's sexual status is business for anyone other than themselves. You would not want your boss discussing how, or who he had sex with. You would not want the teacher of your children making references to their partners in class, unless it was a class on human sexuality.

 

And why is it that I need to back up my thoughts with logic and reasoning?

I was not questioning your thoughts, but the self-rightous statements you've been taking. Is it too much to ask that people considder their thoughts well enough to back them up with reasoning before just accepting them?

 

Quite frankly, I don't see the reasoning behind what you think.

That is because you're too busy making judgements about what I supposedly think that you are so quick to condemn it. You don't see reasoning because you aren't looking. You take a quick glance every so often, and assume that I'm just regurgitating the usual garbage that you're used to hearing on the subject. Where have I ever indicated that I had any of these views that you claim that I have? You make the assumption that human rights are in question, and that I somehow oppose them... Where did you get a silly idea like that?

 

You talk about "right" and "wrong" or acceptance, these things are meaningless if the people you are "accepting" cannot live a gainful lifestyle. And that gainful lifestyle cannot be achieved as long as long as you simpify things the way society (both liberal and conservative) currently does.

 

Research comes into play for helping people understand behavior, and creating the necessary infrastructure to deal with that behavior. There isn't even a concensus on if this behavior is psycholigically driven, biologically driven, or socially driven, or if there is even any reason for the behavior. Human rights aren't the question, it's the impact on society that is. What makes it acceptable for one man to sleep with another, but sex with children or animals, or even inanimate objects is deemed "sick". Now I know you're going to jump over this statement for making the compairison, but please wait and hear me out. The difference is because homosexuallity is more common, and seen as less deviant, or disruptive to society (which it is by a long shot). And it could have only become seen that way because people have actually looked at the causation of the behavior and tried to understand it. Afterall, up until lately homosexual behavior was illegal in many places, and punishable by death, or excommunication in many religions. I am not saying that either is right or wrong, I am not making any moral statements, I am only comparing them since they are both part of an individual's sexual makeup, and while one is condemned by society, one is tolerated. By your reasoning, both would be equally fine in your book, god forbid we look down upon someone who has the hots for livestock. And you know what, I can understand that stance, people do need to be heard, and understood before judgements are passed. But that does not mean that it should necessarly become part of how others are known.

 

Gay people are often the first ones to tell you about their sexuallity, or atleast feel the need to. My contention to the whole argument is why we even need to know. This is not a "don't ask, don't tell" stance, but rather wanting to respect another individuals privacy, and being more concerned about what else they are. Why should "gay", "lesbian", "bi-sexual", "transexual", or anything else even come into the picture unless you have intents to have romantic relations with that individual. Why pidgeon hole people into these categories, and restrict how they will be percieved? Why is it even my business how you choose to have sex? Unfortunately, the reality is that even though people may claim to have open views, when it comes down to being face to face with someone who is gay, or has different behavior than our own groups, we tend to speak to them less, and usually only talk to them out of feeling obligated (proving that you aren't just another hater). More over, those individuals also tend to stay within their own groups, and often look upon others with disgust... Or do you think prejudice is a one way street, and just saying that you "accept them" suddenly fixes everything? What if I were to say that I were gay, lesbian (afterall I've never given any indication of gender), or only felt myself while wearing feminine clothing? It would certainly affect how I would be precieved by others, and would be information that isn't really necessary for understanding who I am. I do not personally like labels, I find them too limiting, why would you assume that I would want to diminish the worth of others as such? My sexual identity is no more your business than what kind of underwear I'm wearing. Likewise it is not my business to question, or expect to know what kind of underwear you are wearing (regardless of reason). You speak about rights, what about a right to personal privacy?

 

Please before you write another angry, and unfounded post, considder that we may agree on more than you seem to realize, or want to. Wether you like it or not, progress will only come because there is research into behavior, and it can be seperated from the views of sin, disease, or abnormallity. Words are cheap, beliefs can be argued against till the end of time, concrete evidence will however determine who's beliefs are more valid. Or do you expect those deeply religious people to just dismiss what is in their teachings because you say differently? Look at history, such significant changes will only happen when people are proven beyond a doubt that their views are wrong. By research, I'm using it broadly to mean any study on the subject, be it medical testing, to case studies, to sociological documentation of human behavior. For all we know, homosexuallity could be present in some degree in everyone, and it is really the norms of society, and the experiences of the individual (and the context of those experiences) that determines anything. If I was in such an extreme opposition to any of this, as you believe I am, why would I post a link to information on the subject, or insist that people discuss the matter in terms beyond the reaches of popular culture. If this is sophistry, then it is necessary as this subject is one which most people don't fully understand, and seem more intent in arguing ethics about than ask any questions.

 

Finally, it is only because society is so severely failing to understand things that many young people are disowned by their parents, are driven into prostitution, drug use, or become suicidal. Just "acceptance" doesn't mean equal treatment. What is needed is understanding about the why, and this is only because we've decided that it is actually something that should make any difference.

 

And I've said my peace. I apoligize Malchik, but I could not just sit here and let someone totally misunderstand everything I had said, and turn it around into some sort of hate-mongering.

[thekid345]

The word I hate the most in the world is fag. It is like the n word.Africans dont like it, homesexuals/transgenders dont like fag.I am not gay, but I have used to have a gay friend. He really opened up my mind. I used to always use the word "fag", and now I completely hate it. He was a good friend, unfortanetly moved.

 

My point is, I have not a single issue with transgendered/crossdressing.I have always said, if you do something, it is fine as long as it hurts nobody.

[DarkAnsem]

sorry, what does fag mean? I'm ignorant.

 

@vagrant as always lenghty posts. ever tought about a career in philosophy?