Transgendered cop gets undue attention
The way the Rocky Mountain News promoted Renee Grahn, the transgendered Aurora police officer (“Undercover in all ways,” Sept. 1), makes me wonder whether my “tomboy” daughter ought to explore the differences and perhaps become a “boy.”
All I hear about anymore are what homosexuals are doing — adopting kids, getting married, becoming deacons of their churches, the list goes on.
And now, three or four full-page descriptions on how well this transgendered person is getting along and how painful it was while “he” waited to get the operation to make “him” a girl. Give me a break.
I really don’t care what certain individuals do to their bodies, but for the Rocky to make it a headline story amazes me.
What’s next in your progressive reporting? How about, “How I used to dress up like a woman at home, but now I go out in public and feel good about myself,” or, “I was afraid people wouldn’t understand that I liked the company of small children, but now with greater ‘freedoms’ I’m hanging out with my pre-teen buddies.”
It all smacks of progressive (wacko) thinking.
Terry Bellomo, Aurora
It isnt their fault terry, they have a serious brain disorder. after some research and the advancement of technology they will eventually be able to identify the gene that causes this disorder along with homosexuality and parents will be able to remove those handicaps prior to birth.
give it time
Posted by Mr diagnosis on September 11, 2007 02:06 AMwhy dont they ever have a story about a normal person who doesnt have to get special attention because they say they have a hard time being a human?
why is it a big story when someones sexual preference comes into play? how about one on heterosexuals for once, oh wait that is not in fashion for politicans to start a cause for or get benefits or equal rights for.
Mr diagnosis
It is quite obvious that YOU are the one with the brain disorder. You should really get counseling to deal with it...big time.
Posted by GK on September 11, 2007 06:00 AMStories like this only go to prove the fourth estate has now joined the likes of the National Enquirer, E television and all the, so called, reallity programs on the tube etal, in seeing how "extreme" they can make sensationalistic reporting of voyeuristic and intrusive stories. This, of course, is an insult to anyone with a life of their own who do not need or want to know intimate details about people they don't know or care about for the purpose of thinking themselves better by comparison. I know there are people who's egos need such things if they are to think themselves worthy of existing and I'm sure some are so bored with their own life they live vicariously through the lives of others.
Even so, why must the press cater to sensationalism using blatanly obvious greedy financially driven tactics while, at the same time, ignoring the issues that effect the everyday lives of people? We are not airheads, quit treating us as if we were.
Posted by Allen Campbell on September 11, 2007 06:52 AMwhy dont they ever have a story about a normal person who doesnt have to get special attention because they say they have a hard time being a human?
why is it a big story when someones sexual preference comes into play? how about one on heterosexuals for once, oh wait that is not in fashion for politicans to start a cause for or get benefits or equal rights for.
Posted by on September 11, 2007 05:53 AM
Let me answer you questions for you.
First of all, this officer didn't call up the media asking them to cover her story. The fact is that she had to fight to keep her job she had proved qualified for and was already doing but was threatened with losing because she was having sex reassignment surgery.
And there have been countless big stories with someone that has a HATE PREFERENCE that "comes into play", but you obviously aren't singling those ones out to be bothered by.
Posted by on September 11, 2007 07:27 AMThe American public is not interested in transgendered people's lives. What we want to hear more about is Brittney Spears. As Allen Campbell says, we are not air heads for God's sake.
Posted by Truth on September 11, 2007 07:39 AMTerry: (first question, are you man or woman... the name could go either way.) Anyway.. not important.
Yes, you might want to consider how you speak in front of your 'tomboy' daughter. If she is a bit of a dyke, your attitude is only going to serve to increase the distance between the two of you and result in your daughter's sadness and confusion for years to come. Please remember, I said "IF".
Posted by Terry on September 11, 2007 07:53 AMnow this all makes sense
'First of all, this officer didn't call up the media asking them to cover her story. The fact is that she had to fight to keep her job she had proved qualified for and was already doing but was threatened with losing because she was having sex reassignment surgery. '
they story was of a 'man' who wants his thing cut off and tucked inside. how do you know the officer didnt call the media? anyway how did this become such a big story if the person themselves didnt bring it up?
Posted by on September 11, 2007 10:09 AMInteresting. The letter-writer is asking why this was a news story. Yet, the existence of this letter basically answers that question.
Posted by Jeff on September 11, 2007 10:41 AMWhat percentage of the population is transgender?
Every day some are born in the wrong bodies. We are a compassionate people and have the technology to help them.
Small minded people like the letter writer should thank their lucky stars that they developed the way they did before and after birth.
Hope this guy doesn`t have any sons, I bet he would watch them like a hawk for signs of "gayness".
Posted by Sharon B. on September 11, 2007 11:28 AMTerry: It's a myth that most tomboys turn out to be lesbians or sex-change candidates. Many don't want to be boys so much as they want to enjoy sports, math, and other activities most strongly associated with boys. It's a bad idea to try to push your daughter toward one gender role or another when she is too young to understand adult concepts of gender. Just let her be a kid.
Posted by karen on September 11, 2007 11:36 AMJoe Blow gets up at seven puts on his gray suit, drives his kids to school in a Ford Taurus, and goes to work as a middle manager at a major corporation.
He comes home has dinner with his family, and after a few american brewed beers, screws his wife in the missionary position and goes to sleep.
Is this the type of news you want?
It's news because it's unusual. Nobody wants to read about the unusual.
And Terry, transgendered are not homosexuals, and if you substituted husband in my scenario above (gay marriage) no one would give a damn about that either.
Posted by on September 11, 2007 11:39 AM11:39 that was funny.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 11, 2007 01:00 PMI wouldn’t sign a name either, even a fake one, if I was prattling on about a subject I haven’t researched or an article I obviously didn’t read carefully. Transgender disorder is not sexual preference. Read the article more thoroughly. Read the other letter in today’s paper about this subject. The American Psychiatric Association and American Medical Association acknowledge this. We all identify with one gender more than the other. Be thankful you’re not living that particular hell in this lifetime.
And in the Utopia of which you speak, Mr. Diagnosis, your parents may have chosen to remove your handicap.
We’re all formed as female in the early stages in the womb. Sex reassignment surgery does not cut anything off. Stop cringing. It’s not happening to you. The same nerves, skin and blood vessels are rerouted and formed into a vagina. A cavity exists so it’s a beautiful fit. The results impress gynecologists. Usually I avoid making absolute statements, but considering I’ve researched this subject I’m making an exception. Nobody, not one single person, has gone on the journey on a whim. In fact, some end their own life. If it was a whim, a passing fancy, small-minded ridicule would nip it in the bud. .
I find the statement, “nobody wants to read about the unusual” very curious. When did “everybody” vote you our spokesperson? A more accurate statement would be “only those of us who want to learn and grow mentally and spiritually want to read about the unusual.” Ignorance is only good at keeping us scared.
DJ I completely agree with your assessment about all of us being female prior to dropping tests pre birth. However, at some point in the future I believe this WILL be " Diagnosed " as a correctable gene disorder. I ALSO believe when that truth is unveiled to the public MOST if not all would be parents are going to choose to remove that obvious social and mental handicap from their soon to be son or daughter.
I now the proletarian imbeciles will call me a bigot or something along those lines for having this belief. However I am sure over time this diagnosis from " Mr. Diagnosis will be proven to be accurate.
Posted by Mr. Diagnosis on September 11, 2007 03:36 PM"...adopting kids, getting married, becoming deacons of their churches..."
My word, what freakish behavior!
Posted by on September 11, 2007 03:36 PMMr. Diagnosis,
Replace "transgendered individual" with "black individual" as the target of your argument, and you will see how horrific and disgusting your statement is. It's only a disorder because you choose to see it as such.
And if technology does indeed reach that point, what's to stop parents from manipulating the genes of fat children, short children, blonde children, etc.--all of whom are at an environmental and/or societal disadvantage?
The "proletariat imbeciles" (and far more people on top of that) will indeed call you a bigot, as this viewpoint is nothing less than bigoted, and that name is nothing less than deserved.
Posted by Dan on September 11, 2007 06:05 PMWhere's Uno on this thread? He wants to meet this cop...he didn't believe this was real.
Posted by on September 11, 2007 06:18 PMDan
Mr. Diagnosis can correct me if I'm interpreted his post incorrectly; however, I don't think he was talking about altering the genes that will result in a future trans gendered surgery, but to remove the potential mental conflict the individual may be forced to undergo. As DJ pointed out, such life changing decisions can lead to deep and emotional trauma of the individuals, oft-times resulting in suicide rather than making the decision to change genders.
Posted by darfor on September 11, 2007 06:25 PMIt would actually be easier to change society then to change individuals, before or after birth. Since we don`t even know where sexual preference and gender identity come from, I don`t think we will see Mr. Diagnosis`s (is that right?) prediction any time soon.
In the meantime, the old bigots keep dying off and if we don`t help produce any new ones, maybe this will solve itself.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 11, 2007 07:18 PMThe original story about Renee Grahn ran in the Rocky on Saturday, September 1, 2007. It started on the first page of the second news section. Miss Grahn isn't the only one or one of the first. This issue is age-old. We're just beginning to talk about it, like so many other issues, because we're living in the age of media coverage. Google the names Christine Jorgenson (spelling?) and Renee Richards. Check out Larry King's webiste about the Florida city manager. Barbara Walters did a 20/20 on transgendered children a few months back. Then information is out there. These people are real and their feelings are real.
Posted by DJ on September 11, 2007 07:21 PMDJ
One of the barracks at Camp Pendleton Marine Base used to have sign on the wall that said "Christine Jorgenson Slept Here". When the PC police hit town, it came down.
Posted by on September 11, 2007 08:21 PMDarfor,
I acknowledge that Mr. Diagnosis may have the point of view that you stated, but it doesn't erase the point that the inherent problem isn't in the individual, it's societal bias. These people do not commit suicide because of the gender they identify with, it's because of the ostracizing they fear may happen as a result, and the confusion within themselves of what society tells us we are supposed to be. Add to that the James Dobsons of the world, who wouldn't know the teachings of Jesus if He walked up Himself and smacked them across the head with the Bible, and no wonder these people are so scared and conflicted.
On another note, my question to Terry Bellomo is, if you are so sick of reading about "homosexuals" (which transgendered people are not) and so forth, why did you go on to read the "three or four full-page descriptions on how well this transgendered person is getting along"? Did someone strap you to a chair at gunpoint and force you to read the article? It's very odd that you would voluntarily participate in reading about something that offends you so much.
Posted by Dan on September 11, 2007 09:59 PMDan, fake indignation, is what that is called. Man I am glad he isn`t my dad. Hope he stops having kids at 1 girl.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 11, 2007 10:29 PMDarfor = exactly correct in regards to my post
Dan = falls in line with the proletarians i mentioned in my prior posting.
Dan it has nothing to do with bigorty ( i feel sorry for those that have this clear and obvious mental disorder) and that they have put up with the social ostracizing and exclusion from those who are normal.
so answer me this, why WOULDNT a parent want to " fix " their child if the technology was available. See Dan, i dont see it as a situation of changing the pigment in ones skin, more like blindness versus vision. or retardation vs sound mental capacity.
however continue with the ignorant bigotry banter if you wish.
Posted by Mr Diagnosis on September 12, 2007 12:33 AMI would hope we don`t start trying to change the brains of unborn babies.
Mental disorder, or difference? Why fix something that isn`t broken?
Blindness and mental retardation effect every action of the person every moment of their lives. Homosexuality or gender changes do not.
Mr Diagnosis, you are a fraud with your fake compassion.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 12, 2007 12:52 AMI like your style, Sharon B. Direct without being condescending. Your compassion penetrates all this software and hardware.
Mr. Diagnosis; You're so busy pointing out the faults of those around you, how do you find time to work on you own faults? There's an old saw in therapy; one finger pointed at you and three pointed back at me. And there's a difference between fact and opinion. You would do well to learn it.
Posted by DJ on September 12, 2007 01:57 AMFirst of all, whether it is broken or not is a matter of opinion to each of us when it comes to this issue.
second, you cant tell me that if you KNEW your son or daughter was facing something like this and it was preventable by gene manipulation you wouldnt take it. ( unless you feel it is ok to allow your child to be born in a body with a gender that is not in sync with its mental state )
Lastly. Sharon B, homosexuality, gender changes, in addition to blindness , mental disorders, are the VERY ESSENCE of of actions that affect people for thier entire lives. I suspect that is just our difference in life philosophies.
P.s. DJ, I dont have to worry about fixing my own faults , due to the several hypocritical nitwits here that choose not to follow that same advice such as yourself for example.
Posted by Mr. Diagnosis on September 12, 2007 04:21 AMDJ, we seam to have made an enemy here.
Would I change something in an unborn child to make them heterosexual?
Only if I was sure it would be 100% successful. Until then, no messing with fetus please.
Why would I change the unborn baby.? Only to make their life easier until society develops some sense and compassion.
If the child was going to live in Europe, probably not. They have grown some there.
If shortness condemned a person to a life time of discrimination, and I could help an unborn baby be taller, I would. We only live one life and anything we can do for those we love to make it easier is good.
it is society and folks like Mr. Diagnosis, who are bad, not getting born in the wrong body or being homosexual.
Now if we could only effect the brains of bigots, with their mental disorder, before they were born.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 12, 2007 12:33 PMSharon B
i suspect you just aren't bright enough to see my point. I am not surprised in the least by this though.
I am sure this has afflicted you your entire life , and see little hope of recovery from your lack of ability to see the point on controversial point of view that contradict your own. ( which is why you consistently rely on the bigot straw man arguments ) when you cannot counter with something worth a valid counter reply.
i feel sorry for you because there are far too many like yourself that have been dumbed down to that point in this world
Posted by Mr diagnosis on September 12, 2007 03:31 PMOh yeah Sharon, btw , thanks for COMPLETELY agreeing with my point of view in y our last sentence .
although , again, I am very suspect in your ability to see where and how you conceded your point of view in that last sentence .
like I said ... dumbed down ....it is sad .
Mr. Diagnosis,
The basis for your argument seems to be that that homosexuality and gender identity disorder are mental problems or genetic problems. You are right, particularly in the case of those who are transgendered, that there are both genotypical and phenotypical factors at play. However, because genetic factors (including mutations) affect everyone, what is your basis for deciding what is a “problem” and what is an adaptive mutation? What about neutral mutations?
How are you defining “mental problems”?
You also use the word “normal” several times, what constitutes normal vs. abnormal?
Are you basing normality on a cultural perspective (i.e. X behavior is normal because Americans overwhelmingly thing so)? If so, normal would vary based on culture and would have no fixed status as culture can change.
Or perhaps on a rarity argument (i.e. 90% percent of people don’t exhibit X behavior). If that is the case: What is the threshold to judge for normalcy? Do 50% of people have to display a behavior? 60%? Where is the line and why. Also if you are advocating genetic therapy to correct abnormal traits, are you consistent across the board? Should all rare traits be corrected? If not all traits, what basis is used to decide which traits to correct and which not to? Geniuses are rare and there is likely a genetic component involved, if we could should we eliminate geniuses, they have a high rate of suicide and often lead difficult lives? What about musical savants?
Mr. D. weep not for me. I have stopped putting explanations in my posts. But you seem to need them.
When you call a transgender or homosexual person "handicapped" that is your opinion and for that, and calling them mentally ill, I get to call you a bigot. That is how it works.
No more whining. On to the next point.
My last sentence about effecting the brains of bigots, prenatal, was: sarcasm, a cheep shot at you because you sooo deserve it , and a hint that opinions can also come from brain disorders.
However, if you take the time to answer ALL of Kari`s questions, you may grow more mentally healty in the process.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 12, 2007 05:07 PMSharon B.
whatever it takes to ease your pain. but the fact remains you calling me a bigot is a strawmans arguement plain and simple. Finally I knew you were incapable of deciphering how you conceeded. No big deal though, when a medicore mind like yours presents itself in a debate it is easy to defeat.
Keri,
I suppose we can use societal norms in identifying a "problem mutation:" such as transgender and homosexuality, and until science determines it to be an undisputed fact that it is a gene abnormality causing a mental irregularity , i suppose I will have to just take my gut feeling that it is.
as far as who decides what traits a person should or should not have , I suppose again I am going to have to say the would be parents can and should make that call
I also think your comparasion of homosexuality and transgender to Geniuses is weak at best. currently science can offer a surgical alternative to the transgendered , there are no alternatives presently for the homsexual or those with high intellect. However, I suppose if a parent wants their child to have a 3rd 21st chormosome ( aka sharon b) instead of a Genius it would be their choice to make the change if it were available.
Obviously keri, you aremuch smarter then sharon, and has a grasp on concepts as intellectually diverse such as this one. I hope you can understand my point of view here, and will not resort to a 3rd grader arguement in calling me a bigot with my belief
Posted by Mr Diagnosis on September 12, 2007 11:47 PMMr. Diagnosis-- Thank you, thank you, thank you for proving my point. And I know you're going to write again to reiterate. Love, peace and tolerance to all.
Posted by DJ on September 13, 2007 01:41 AMMr. Diagnosis,
Thank you for your response. It was illuminating. Based on your previous comments, I was assuming you were coming from a more or less “traditional” eugenics perspective. However, you have a more interesting perspective, if I am understanding you correctly, you are not advocating for societal level genetic engineering, but a personal level of engineering. I.E. if it were scientifically possible, a parent should be able to make whatever genetic determinations for their child that they want. This seems to imply (correct me if I am wrong) that the government should not be making those choices for parents (weather that means determining or restricting them).
This leads me to some questions. Do you think any restrictions should be placed on parental genetic engineering (if it were possible)? We have all read stories of bizarre parenting, people who want to name their child “@” and things like that. So I don’t think it is so far out of the realm of possibility to imagine parents who would genetically modify their children to have blue skin, or feline features if they could. Should that sort of thing be allowed? If so, what do we base restrictions on? If you say societal norms, you are forced to define how we know what is “normal”. Who decides? How much of the population would it take? Should it be based on polling the public?
Genetic engineering is a complicated and largely (at this point) speculative topic. It is also one that genders a lot of fear from the general public. Almost every possible feat of potential genetic modification is wrought with debate and controversy, for example, in general people do not see much of a problem with genetically manipulating a child to not have tay sachs disease (if it could be safely done), but do have strong opposition to choosing a child’s eye color. Both are entirely genetic conditions (unlike behavioral traits which are always at least partially environmental), but there is strong opposition from most people to manipulating that which is not devastatingly and catastrophically detrimental.
To get back to the topic of discussion, have you considered the limitations to your argument? Particularly, you are essentially arguing that we should adjust biology and specifically genetics to fit cultural whims. There could be some serious long term repercussions to this course of action, because genetic modification can have consequences for generations and culture changes. What is normal now, may not be in several generations. And again, you are faced with trying to come up with a rubric for how we determine what is societally normal, beyond what a particular individual thinks culture deems normal. You also have to define what counts as a culture or society. Are you looking at it on a nation wide level, or a regional level, or local? How do you account for cultures within cultures, or regional variation? I find the idea of cultural or societal normalcy to be very ephemeral.
I also wonder if you have an embedded moral perspective that you are coming from, or if you are truly a cultural relativist. If you really believe culture/society dictates what is normal or what is a problem, how do you deal with different cultures which disagree? To use the example of gender, our culture currently only defines two genders, male and female (I am talking gender here which is different than biological sex), however other cultures have three or more genders. India is the biggest example that comes to mind, they have males, females and hijras which are a third sex that is neither man nor woman. If you are really letting society dictate what is ok, then you have to either claim that “mental disorders” are really just cultural nuances (at least in many cases).
Most people are not true cultural relativists, they are to a point, but they think there are essential rights/morals that are not culturally dependent. For example, anyone who believes in inaliable rights is saying there are rights that trump culture, they therefore have to ground their arguments in some philosophical perspective. This is what I see lacking in your argument, I am unclear what your moral grounding is on this topic.
I think that most people would argue that “mental disorders” are medically based and cross-cultural, and most professionals in related fields do not think that homosexuality is a mental disorder nor a genetic one. In fact current biological, evolutionary and anthropological research is beginning to indicate 1) That homosexuality is present in most mammals and birds, and 2) That it is often an adaptive trait. In humans, there is a strong trend in research demonstrating that homosexuality is beneficial to both a person’s culture group, but also their own genetic line. I started to elaborate on the research here, but it is complicated, and would take up a lot of space, however, I would be happy to provide more information if you request it. I think you are going to be hard pressed to come up with a solid argument for homosexuality being a “problem”.
As far as those who are transgendered, you may have a better argument. When a person is transgendered, it is an issue of their body not matching up with their brain/genetic code. I think it is important to note that there is not just one type of problem that causes a person to be transgendered. It can be caused by random genetic mutations, damage to the womb allowing testosterone, or estrogen in at the wrong stages of development, it can be caused by doctors who randomly “correct” ambiguous gender at birth, and there are causes that are currently unknown. We have learned some about how a fetus can end up with a body that does not match the brain by looking at animals who are “normally” partially transgendered, like hyenas. But, there are still a lot of unanswered questions about how it happens.
The one cause we know the most about currently, deals with babies who have ambiguous sex at birth. It used to be that the common practice when a baby was born with this characteristic, that their doctor, sometimes with parental input, sometimes without, would chose which gender he or she thought the baby should be and surgically assign a gender. Unfortunately, about half the time the doctors were wrong and at puberty, the brain would turn on either male or female hormones, that didn’t match the persons body and then there were problems. This does illustrate the deep need to be very careful with engineering a child, there can be tragic consequences for missteps.
The way I see it, when dealing with gender identity disorder, is it really comes down to weather you would “correct” the child’s brain or their body. That is to say, I think that if they could, most transgendered people would chose to be born with a body that matched their brains/genetics. However, I think most of them would not choose to take a pill that would rewire their brain so that they could be happy with the body they were born with. I think this is because most people see the brain as being a critical element or device of the mind or “self”. People overwhelmingly have a stronger reverence for “self” or mind than they do body. Likely, this is because many people have a concept of a soul that is bound up with concept of mind or self. Most people do not see body and soul as being as inextricably connected. I think there is something too that distinction (though theory of mind is very murky to me). I therefore, would not have a problem with ensuring a fetus has the correct body for their brain/genetics (if it could be done with a high level of safety and accuracy), but I would see a moral problem with changing a fetus’s brain to match its body. I think there are strong and reasonable arguments for not tinkering with the components of mind/self.
To another poster you posed the question of weather they would chose to ensure their child was heterosexual if they could. I would like to provide my answer to that question. I would not choose to ensure a heterosexual child, for several reasons. The first is I think sexual identity is bound up with the condition of “self” which I am deeply reluctant to tinker with. But also, because, yeah they are going to have some tough challenges ahead of them (though I hope less and less in coming generations), but there is no child who will not have to deal with adversity, and parents should not focus as much on what the adversity is, but how to raise a child that can overcome that adversity with character while preserving their self-worth and integrity.
On a final note, I hope you will find that I do my best to avoid personal attack and name calling. I think it is impolite, lacks integrity, and hinders intellectual conversation. I encourage everyone to avoid this behavior, and try not to respond in kind when it is directed at me. I would like to gently remind you that that you have engaged in making derogatory comments about Sharon B., just as she has to you, and I would encourage you to avoid this behavior in your writing. I hope that did not come out condescending, or severe, it wasn’t meant as such.
I think we are getting way off the point of the original letter writer and our subsequent responses.
my statements are going to stand on their own at this time since we have beaten the subject to death.
I appreciate your input.
sharon b , it would serve you well to take a lesson from keri
Posted by Mr Diagnosis on September 13, 2007 02:22 PMMr. Diagnosis,
I am sorry that you don’t wish to engage in this dialogue further, I would have liked to hear you’ your thoughts on my response to you. I do realize however, that these boards can pull you in an eat up much of your time.
On a humorous note, I have never seen a letter with a substantial thread associated with it that stays on topic here. But I enjoy the digression; it usually delves into interesting and deeper conversation.
Mr. D. If you truly care to help people, it did not come through in your comments.
I also think that environmental factors such as estrogen in drinking water causes changes in the fetus, as does stress on the mother.
if we could make pregnancy easier, some of the differences might go away.
Homosexuals often refer to themselves as being born "left handed'. This makes the point that difference is not less.
Would we change left handed babies before birth? No. Too many risks.
Using the terms handicapped, in a physical, and cultural way is what you did.
Your claim that they have a "serious brain disorder" when applied to homosexuals is just your opinion. And it is not a very nice one.
I was not the first to call you a bigot but for some reason you ignore the others.
Dan used the term first, and Keri hinted at it in her much nicer post.
If you are not a bigot, have no problem with homosexuals being among us and having all the rights and benefits we have, then we all seem to have misjudged you.
And transgender changes involve more then surgery. There is a long difficult process here, this is not for the weak.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 13, 2007 03:30 PMTo most of you who replied, the point I was trying to make is that I understand my daughter is just behaving normally, of course I don't think she wants to be a "boy". She wants to play sports, soccer, volleyball, basketball, get it? I do.
I guess sarcasm is wasted on you "permissiveness first, always" no matter what the topic. You didn't fully digest my underlying meaning at all, you just were there to "protect" everyones choice for whatever they chose to do. Listen up.
Posted by Gofastgo on September 14, 2007 09:02 AMSharon, if you don't think homosexuality is a disorder of some kind, and is just "normal" for some people, you must have something wrong with you.
Homosexuals don't procreate, where would the worlds populace come with you analogy? Of course they are abnormal, just as abnormal as the "guy" , "girl" whatever it is now is, abnormal.
I do believe however, that homosexuals don't have a choice in how they feel, I believe it is a gene misplacement of some kind and that they are born with that affliction, attraction to the same sex.
Please don't start with the "transgender isn't homosexual" I think I know that much, the reason I group them together is that "they" aren't normal. Terry
Posted by terry bellomo on September 14, 2007 09:11 AMTerry
Reading your weak argument all I can say is the only one that isn't normal is you.
Posted by GK on September 14, 2007 11:10 AMThanks GK. The abnormality in our society today is not the racial minority or the sexual minority, it is the ignorant majority. The question about a "Tomboy Daughter" proves the ignorance. It is unlikely that Terry's daughter has spent her lifetime feeling lost and confused in her gender, longing to be the person she was born to be. "Tomboy" only suggests another of vile and unfair stereotypes being promulgated in the name of morality and/or religion. Sad, so sad.
Posted by Ken on September 14, 2007 03:06 PMTerry, I think you are confusing the term normal with the term norm.
Many people do not fit the "norm" , remember the bell curve? Some people are sterile, some are asexual, all fit some where on the continuum that is human sexuality.
Yes homosexuals are normal but they are not the "norm".
All mammals have some behavior differences, it is on those, both physical and mental that evolution operates.
As to the idea that homosexuals do not procreate, well they can and do. Males have children to provide "cover" for themselves and females have had little choice in the past, they were married off young and procreated just like everyone else.
I understand that you are using the term "normal" in a way that makes homosexuals look deviant. That is your right, but many people are born this way, say 7% of the population for example, maybe less or more.
That percentage is not enough to keep a species from existing.
Evolution does not need 100% of a group to keep the species going.
A friend of mine raised sheep. A small percentage of the mothers abandoned their young completely and she had to bottle feed them. This is completely normal but not the norm. See most mothers take care of their young, some don`t. They are not abnormal, in some deviant, bad way, just different.
Sheep have existed for millions of years with a number of mothers letting their young die. Still sheep exist.
Any help here? Let me know.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 14, 2007 03:08 PM