| Texas gets a cookie; AFA gets nothing. |
[Apr. 20th, 2009|11:12 pm] |
I was wandering around the internets and found an article on ths conservative news website that's associated with the American Family Association with the headline "Texas promotes transgender 're-education' legislation". Seeing that I live in Texas, the very thought of what this might means horrified me, so I went and looked.
Turns out this is actually a good thing - someone in the Texas government has actually suggested a legal measure that could help trans people. I won't link to the article because I don't want to give them any more pageviews, but I'll quote the relevant parts: Texas is considering a measure to stiffen penalties for harming transgendered people. The addition is to the state's hate crimes law and does more than just provide stiffer penalties, according to attorney Jonathan Saenz of the Free Market Foundation.
"The judge could order that someone who commits one of these crimes has to go to an education program and really re-learn how to think and agree that they accept the other side and the view of the other side in this particular case," he notes. And in a move that did not surprise me at all, they took this route: Saenz believes it is reminiscent of re-education camps used in China and the former Soviet Union.
Jonathan Saenz: "Well, it sure sounds like that. And you know, these laws actually apply to juveniles, too, so you can see an intent there to start off really young trying to re-program [and] focus people -- and [it's] really a form of mind-control," he contends. Riiiight, because teaching people why it's not okay to hurt other people is exactly what they do in totalitarian regimes. But you know how these people usually roll - if you absolutely cannot find any logical reason why something is wrong and should not happen, just point out how it's kinda-sorta-vaguely similar to what the communists did. |
|
|
| Not so much rage as annoyance. |
[Dec. 15th, 2008|06:51 pm] |
I was looking around SoYouWanna.Com and stumbled across their article about gender reassignment (entitled "So you wanna get a sex change?" *eyeroll*) The article in and of itself is decent for about the first page, but the thing that really caught my attention was that they had filed this particular article under the catagory of "Bizarre". Naturally I was a bit peeved about this, ( so I wrote them a little note. ) |
|
|
| Two letters. |
[Nov. 6th, 2008|02:55 pm] |
Dear Certain Ignorant Individuals:
"Transgender" or "transsexual" is NOT a sexual fetish. It is NOT the ultimate in BDSM. I honestly can't believe you guys think trans people go out and get SRS for SEXUAL PLEASURE! (Even more so that they DO IT THEMSELVES for sexual pleasure.)
Wondering, "WTFF?"
-Me
|
|
|
| Stupidity + academia = Sheer lunacy!!! |
[May. 15th, 2008|04:49 am] |
I am livid. I am MORE than livid about this one, my droogies!
The DSM-V, the diagnostic book that assists doctors in diagnosing mental health issues, is up for review. Of particular interest to me is that the diagnoses for GID (or transsexualism) has been assigned a Task Force to review whether or not GID should be reclassified or removed from the DSM altogether.
However, the asshats at the DSM assigned Dr. Kenneth Zucker, who advocates reparative therapy for gender variant children, to head up the Task Force. In addition, the panel includes Dr. Ray Blanchard, infamous in medical circles for producing a protegé in Dr. J. Michael Bailey, who posited such interesting theories as: all transwomen are merely extreme 'homosexuals' or drastic fetishists depending on their orientation, and transmen and bisexual men just don't really exist. Bailey is also known for using questionable and unscientific theories to gain his data.
And the idiots at the DSM thought hiring Zucker and Blanchard for this was a GOOD idea?!? Jeebus Crust, but stupidity really can coexist with academic smarts, it seems.
See links here and here. There's a petition going around here as well. X-posted to ![[info]](https://www.insanejournal.com/img/community.gif) transandallies and ![[info]](https://www.insanejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif) hazumuchan. |
|
|
| today is "get out of my ____" day, apparently |
[May. 9th, 2008|01:54 pm] |
Dear reporter:
I see you're writing an article about transgender children. An actually balanced one, even, which shows how transkids respond to being pressured to conform and how they respond to being supported -- well done there. However, I can't help noticing that throughout the story of a little girl whose family and friends are supporting her and respecting her identity, you not only persist in calling her "him" but also make a point of reminding us that "he" is "his" parents' "son." How is it that you apparently researched transpeople, listened to explanations of why supporting them is good, and wrote a sympathetic article without getting the basic notion of respecting the transperson's identity? She wants to use female pronouns and descriptors, it's easier to use the same words that everyone you're talking to about her is using -- why do you insist on ignoring her wishes?
Dear silly lesbians:
Being bisexual does not make a woman:
-An STD risk. Female-to-female sexual transmission is so unusual that I couldn't even find statistics about how unusual it is. You will not get AIDS if you sleep with a bisexual woman. Honestly. (Anyway, a lot of gay women slept with men in the past. Are you really going to limit yourself to women who've only ever done it with women? Because I pity your odds.)
-Promiscuous. There are bisexual people who are promiscuous and there are bisexual people who are poly, but I'm pretty sure that the percentage of bisexuals who are one or both of these is no higher than the percentage of gay or straight people who are. Yes, bisexual people can hypothetically be attracted to twice as many people as gay/straight ones can -- but attraction != sex, and in any case a wider pool also means the ability to be pickier.
-More likely to dump you than a gay woman. All right, statistically bisexual women might be more likely to end up with men than with women -- I don't have the data to say if this is so -- but I don't hear you shrieking about how you'd never date someone of another race/faith because of the statistical odds of success being lower. (If you are, well, I really have nothing to say to that.) At any rate, the odds of a given relationship working out are much more influenced by the specific individuals' personalities and general compatibility. If you're dumped by a bisexual woman, it'll be because you're insecure and jealous, not because you're female.
Also, bisexuals exist. I will provide the scientific data to back this up if you don't believe me.
It's not that I mind having reduced competition for the attractive bi girls, but come on! |
|
|
pissed off
aggravated