Update: Gazette Edits Slur
I'm not sure what the editor's manual says about this, but the Gazette at least showed they knew they had to do something.
Yesterday we pointed out an ugly slur they carried in a letter to the editor. I partly blamed the newspaper, because they should have recognized it for what it was, and not published the letter.
Then today somebody in our comments pointed out that they had changed a word in Maria Pena-Faustino's letter, discussed in the previous post: they changed the word "his" to "her."
Now it's:
OK, that's at least a kind of fix, it resolves the Gazette's problem. But ... that wasn't what Ms. Pena-Faustino wrote.
Tough decisions here. Worst: print the slur as if it were acceptable. Somewhat better: change the letter to cover up the fact that the writer used a slur. Even better: don't publicize this kind of ugliness at all. Best: expose bigots for what they are.
What do you think?
Yesterday we pointed out an ugly slur they carried in a letter to the editor. I partly blamed the newspaper, because they should have recognized it for what it was, and not published the letter.
Then today somebody in our comments pointed out that they had changed a word in Maria Pena-Faustino's letter, discussed in the previous post: they changed the word "his" to "her."
Now it's:
As Dr. Dana Beyer stated in her July 11 letter ...
OK, that's at least a kind of fix, it resolves the Gazette's problem. But ... that wasn't what Ms. Pena-Faustino wrote.
Tough decisions here. Worst: print the slur as if it were acceptable. Somewhat better: change the letter to cover up the fact that the writer used a slur. Even better: don't publicize this kind of ugliness at all. Best: expose bigots for what they are.
What do you think?
posted by JimK at 10:04 PM
61 Comments:
I accept that it was an inadvertent oversight on the part of The Gazette editor in charge of the letters. Given that, and the fact that it didn't appear in print, a correction of the webpage is sufficient.
Dr
It may be that the person meant to insult you because she had heard how you guys react to it. It may also be that she doesn't buy the whole "brain sex" idea and doesn't want to lend credence to it.
Regardless, can't you be the bigger man and ignore it. Even trying to look at it from your perspective, it's hard to see how it's "an ugly slur" worthy of apology demands. After all, you spent years being referred to by masculine pronouns. You've made a change, in your thinking, but even given that, isn't the comment just irritating rather than "ugly"?
Well, now that you've lost the curriculum battle, you've resorted to the personal attack.
You should try a new trick. This one's getting old fast, and it sure as hell is not winning over any converts.
Sounds like the discussion will continue on this topic.
So I am reposting what I just posted on the topic below. I really would like to hear an answer.
Theresa
I think it is relevant to look at Maria's statement to the board of education, and Grace's Harleys statement to the board of education.
Both of them indicate the intolerance of not including ex-gays in the curriculum, Grace is an ex-transgender.
So, how is it "terribly rude" to call Dana a he, when at the same time you are pretending (quite vehemently) people like Grace don't exist ?
I am just wondering how you justify this. Seems pretty hypocritical to me.
Theresa
"Dear Members of the Montgomery County Board of Education:
I have served as a volunteer for over 20 years in Montgomery County. I was
grateful that you placed enough confidence in my judgment to appoint me to the
CACFLHD. I did not have any agenda except making sure all of our students are served best. I did not read anything about the lawsuit, the condom video, or
try to influence any of you for my appointment.
At the last CACFLHD meeting, I walked with frustration.
At the meeting, after the committee finished discussing adding the tern
transgender, the term ex-gays was also offered to be added to the vocabulary.
The committee has been tolerant, open and supportive of homosexuals. I was
absolutely stunned to see that the other category that of "ex-gay" in the 10th
grade dictionary was not allowed to be added.
I lived in New York for 18 years and fwe of my best friends were gay. Two
died of AIDS. Two left the gay life style and married women. One lives in
California. The other married in New York and moved to Florida. The other
one is still gay. So even though I did not have an agenda, 1 think the need
to support "one more choice" that of "ex-gay" is just and fair. I have
seen it with my own eyes.
I did not know anything about anyone on this committee. I initially
thought the committee was tolerant, open, and giving. I have
been disturbed to find total opposition and bias from the committee.(Votes
always 11-3) 1 feel my vote is a waste of time. I feel responsible to you for the
outcome. I don't know if I am going back to the committee.
Respectful,
Maria Peiia-Faustino"
"My name is Grace Harley. I live in Montgomery County and my grandchildren attend the Montgomery County Public Schools.
I am a former transgender and lived as a man for over 10 years. I am now a member ofPFOX, Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays.
I speak today because I am concerned that your proposed lesson plans for students on sexual orientation do not include former homosexuals or former transgenders like myself.
The lesson plans teach children about homosexuals, bisexuals, lesbians, transgenders,
coming out for gays, gender identity, homophobia, and intersexual, but no ex-gays. Why is the ex-gay community being censored in the lesson plans when every other sexual orientation is discussed and supported?
Lesson plans for our children and grandchildren are entitled "Respect
for Differences in Human Sexuality" and promote acceptance for homosexuals, transgendered and the intersexed. Yet the only sexual orientation in our school system which receives no respect are ex-gays and former transgenders like myself. The committee members you appointed to develop the lesson plans show outright disrespect of the ex-gay community and even question our existence. Yet these same members promote tolerance for gays and transgenders. Their
hosiility to formerhomosexuals proves that ex-gays need to be part of your "Respect sexual differences"lesson plans. Otherwise, the student lesson plans serve no purpose but to promote homosexuality and cross dressing when ex-gays are the only sexual orientation group in this school system that not receive respect and tolerance.
Grace Harley"
It's ugly because it is used as a deliberate PERSONAL insult, in this case in a political context. I am personally not even irritated by it, because I expect no less from the CRC crowd. My friends and colleagues are the ones who feel insulted. I do expect, however, that individuals with whom I have a personal relationship, such as Maria and Ruth, for instance, will treat me with respect as I treat them. It really is very simple, and I believe I learned that when I was about, oh, four years old.
There is no such thing as "ex-transgender." I have nothing against Grace, nor have I ever referred to her in any manner other than that of the manner of how she presents. Grace has chosen to live as she has chosen, and I accept that (as if my opinion means, or should mean, anything to her anyway). I chose, for various reasons, to live as a man for fifty years; I have since chosen to transition. But my underlying reality was never any different, and hasn't been since six weeks after conception. I was transgender at birth, as was Grace; how we presented to the world or were presented to it by our parents is not the point.
No one has ever stated or insinuated that trans people MUST transition, simply that the condition be understood and that those individuals who desire to transition be allowed their full rights and the respect of their peers.
As I've said before, we didn't choose to be who we are. Our only choice is deciding what to do about it. I decided to stop denying myself and to live as full a life as possible, which I am doing. Grace has made her own choice, and I respect that. There are a handful of others like Grace who chose to de-transition -- no one is attacking them. They are an exceedingly small proportion of the total number who have successfully transitioned, which is something to be celebrated. The treatment for this intersex condition is one of the most successful in all of medicine.
As for Josie, I haven't made a change in my thinking, as I've pointed out before. I have always thought this way. I have made a change in my living, and since I present as a woman, I deserve the respect to which all women are entitled. I am also legally female, so I have no idea why you think you're entitled to challenge that as well.
I have no idea what sex you are. If you tell me you're female, I will accept that. If you present as female, that's how everyone will accept you. If your papers say "female," hat's how the state will accept you. It's pretty simple.
"Both of them indicate the intolerance of not including ex-gays in the curriculum, Grace is an ex-transgender."
Theresa,
Ex-gay is of course HETEROSEXUAL, so how exactly are heterosexuals not being tolerated?
If someone is ex-transgendered, then they are back to being what would be defined as a homosexual (or sometimes back to being heterosexual). Also covered, and therefore "tolerated."
Other than the "intolerance" of creating non-existent sexual orientations by adding an "ex" prefix to a word, What specifically do you find hypocritical?
I am sorry, I am having trouble following the logic here.
SO, if a homosexual chooses to live as a homosexual, they are a homosexual. But if they chose to live a heterosexual, now they are heterosexual. It is really the expression of how they are living, not that they are truly hetereosexual or truly homosexual.
Make sense, if it is a choice, and then I would agree with the terminology.
But if it is innate, and not a choice - well then they are truly homosexual or truly heterosexual choosing to live in an opposite way, and it would seem to me that the term ex-gay is appropriate.
Only if what expresses whether a person is gay or not is their behavior, well then you are innately heterosexual or innately homosexually based on WHAT YOU CHOOSE TO DO ?
I am sorry, folks, I am just having a little bit of trouble following the logic here.
Help me out, please.
Theresa
Theresa, I thought you were an engineer. You should know better.You have an innate gender identity and sexual orientation.How you then choose to live is based on other factors. A gay man living a heterosexual life is still a gay man, but if no one knows that then he is passing as straight. I have always been intersex. Early on only my parents knew, and I passed as a man. Later only my wives knew, and I continued to pass as a manb. Now I am simply the woman I have always been.
I had bo choice in the drug my mother took, nor did I get to choose my brain sex nor the genitals with which I was born. My choice was to continue to live in misery or live as myself.
"SO, if a homosexual chooses to live as a homosexual, they are a homosexual."
No. A homosexual IS a homosexual, whether they "choose" to live as one or not. Just as a heterosexual IS a heterosexual whether they "choose" to live as one or not.
It’s my understanding that most people don’t choose their sexual attraction, and thus, don’t choose their sexual orientation.
Some people are bisexual, and thus are attracted to both genders. Sometimes equally, and sometimes to varying degrees.
Bisexuality seems to be much rarer than even homosexuality, and as many bisexuals that I know, I am really not in a position to speak for them. There is however a lot of information out there. (Check out the forums on Soulforce if you're interested, we often talk about this.)
“Make sense, if it is a choice, and then I would agree with the terminology.”
To my understanding, gender attraction for the majority of the population is NOT a choice, thus the “ex-gay” terminology does not apply, in that it implies "choice." An implication that is sinfully insulting.
Usually the term “ex-gay” is synonymous with celibacy, but most identifiably, it's the very IDEA that same-gender attraction is immoral. Ergo, still gay, but denying it for God.
So be it, but religious denial of one's sexual orientation is not an orientation. What would you consider the term “ex-straight” to mean?
If the term “ex-gay” does apply however, then that person is a rare bird who can actually choose to be sexually attracted to whatever gender they want to. Ergo, they are either bisexual, or decidedly heterosexual, the term “ex-gay” may apply descriptively, but it is still not a distinct “sexual orientation.”
“Only if what expresses whether a person is gay or not is their behavior, well then you are innately heterosexual or innately homosexually based on WHAT YOU CHOOSE TO DO ?”
One common misunderstanding is that we DO gay. It shouldn’t be any more confusing than the idea of whether you “do” heterosexuality.
If you’re really trying to understand then I appreciate your questions. I’m not always the best to answer, but please continue to ask. Point being, there ARE answers to the questions.
Theresa,
I don't know Maria's friends, but, as the last post notes (and as the new curriculum lessons recognize), some people are bi-sexual. Some are gay, but choose to "pass." That is their choice, of course, but they are not choosing a sexual orientation other than the one they have.
Obviously, there is little to add to Dana's discussion of the transgender question. I would note, however, that the medical community imposes very strict safeguards regarding the transitioning process.
So, question for you, Micheal Glazte ...
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56487
He was alway innately heterosexual and just confused and thought he was homosexual ? Or he was innately homosexual and is now innately heterosexual ? Or he chose to behave in a homosexual fashion and then decided to abandon that desire..
How about Charlene Cothran - same question... she was really always heterosexual even though she spent 29 years living as a lesbian ? (the better part of her adult life). That would make her innately a lesbian, wouldn't it ...
and she's confused trying to act like a heterosexual.
How about Ann Heche ... Ellen Degeneres sometime girlfriend who married a man. Bi-sexual ? Lesbian ? Heterosexual..
So how do you tell with these folks ? You wouldn't describe them as ex-gay ? What would you call them...
Still confused.
Theresa
Teresa,
you aren't confused. you are playing games. to me the matter is simple. was it necessary to be rude to dana?
Theresa asks: "So how do you tell with these folks ? You wouldn't describe them as ex-gay ? What would you call them..."
Bi-sexual, unless they are simply pretending they do not have homosexual feelings and are pretending to be soley heterosexual.
People may be able to suppress their sexuality, but there is no evidence that they can change it through will, therapy, or prayer.
So many "ex-gay" leaders have "fallen off the wagon." Wouldn't it have been kinder not to pressure them to get on the straight wagon in the first place?
"People may be able to suppress their sexuality, but there is no evidence that they can change it through will, therapy, or prayer."
David, you've discussed before here that scientific research indicates that everyone falls somewhere on a continuum of sexuality and few are at one end or the other. In other words, everyone has the capacity for either type of activity. Wouldn't it be reasonable to assume then that they can choose which aspect of their sexuality to develop? Isn't it really sexuality itself that is innate, not preference? And why can't preference for sexuality change when every other type of preference seems to be pliable?
Granted, having chosen to participate in a certain type makes it more difficult to go back but, still, not impossible, no matter if some do.
"So many "ex-gay" leaders have "fallen off the wagon." Wouldn't it have been kinder not to pressure them to get on the straight wagon in the first place?"
Probably not. The dangers of the homosexual lifestyle increase the more one partcipates. During the time these people were resisting, at least they were increasing their chance for a healthy life.
This is probably more so the younger one is. Surely you see that sowing a few wild oats is significantly more dangerous for young gays than normal young people. If they spend five years at this time seeking counseling and change, at least, even if they weren't successful, they were not exposing themselves to the dangers inherent in pursuing a homosexual lifestyle during that time. This is why those who flippantly talk about the "dangers" of reparative therapy really cause harm to those young people who may have developed these disordered desires.
gee, jor-el, you sound just like a colleague of mine named ruth! you wouldn't happen to know her, would you?
those who flippantly talk about the "dangers" of reparative therapy really cause harm
The only one talking "flippantly" about the dangers of conversion therapy is Anonjoe. He writes as if he beieves these therapies are successful and result in no harm, however, peer reviewed studies of conversion therapies attempted over the years indicate his beliefs are wrong. Many studies and reviews of studies have found that most attempts fail to cause conversions but they often cause real harm to patients due to increased internalized homophobia. Here are a few:
Shidlo and Schroeder, 2002
Haldeman, 1999
Haldeman, 1991
Since some anonymous CRC supporters along with Ruth Jacobs seem to believe US Surgeon Generals are the ultimate source for medical facts in this country, even when the statements are nearly 20 years old, they might be interested in this 2001 statement from Dr. David Satcher, the 16th Surgeon General of the United States.
Sexual orientation is usually determined by adolescence, if not earlier (Bell et al, 1981), and there is no valid scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be changed (Haldeman, 1994; APA, 2000). Nonetheless, our culture often stigmatizes homosexual behavior, identity and relationships (Herek, 1993). These anti-homosexual attitudes are associated with psychological distress for homosexual persons and may have a negative impact on mental health, including a greater incidence of depression and suicide, lower self-acceptance and a greater likelihood of hiding sexual orientation (Gonsiorek, 1982; Ross, 1985; Ross, 1990; Greene, 1997; Remafedi, 1998). Although the research is limited, transgendered persons are reported to experience similar problems. In their extreme form, these negative attitudes lead to antigay violence. Averaged over two dozen studies, 80 percent of gay men and lesbians had experienced verbal or physical harassment on the basis of their orientation, 45 percent had been threatened with violence, and 17 percent had experienced a physical attack (Berrill, 1992).
http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/sexualhealth/call.htm
Dr. Satcher's statement also included this quote about the effectiveness of teaching teens about condoms:
Programs that typically emphasize abstinence, but also cover condoms and other methods of contraception, have a larger body of evaluation evidence that indicates either no effect on initiation of sexual activity or, in some cases, a delay in the initiation of sexual activity (Kirby, 1999; Kirby, 2001). This evidence gives strong support to the conclusion that providing information about contraception does not increase adolescent sexual activity, either by hastening the onset of sexual intercourse, increasing the frequency of sexual intercourse, or increasing the number of sexual partners. In addition, some of these evaluated programs increased condom use or contraceptive use more generally for adolescents who were sexually active (Kirby et al, 1991; Rotheram-Borus et al, 1991; Jemmott et al, 1992; Walter and Vaughn, 1993; Magura et al, 1994; Main et al, 1994; St Lawrence et al, 1995; Hubbard et al, 1998; Jemmott et al, 1998; Coyle et al, 1999).
Based on research findings and Dr. Satcher's non-Bush filtered Surgeon General's statements, MCPS has done the right thing to omit information about ineffective risky conversion therapy and to include a demonstration and discussion of consistent and correct condom usage in the revised health education curriculum.
" was it necessary to be rude to dana?"
If ones strongly believes that gender reassignment surgery is wrong, it is rude to ask people who hold those beliefs to refer to Dana and other transgenders in a pro-noun other than the
one anatomically correct at birth.
That would be crossing the line from tolerance and insisting on acceptance.
Theresa
"Theresa, I thought you were an engineer."
Dana, I have an engineering degree, but I have been in sales and marketing for the past 20 years...
My husband, though, is a practicing engineer (and an atheist). He also believes that sexual orientation is caused by a variety of factors, and that children should not be taught, incorrectly, that it is "innate".
Jor-el?
Dangers of homosexual lifestyle?
When someone talks about the so-called dangers of the homosexual lifestyle, they are usually making reference to a school of thought created through the reliance on bad studies, the cherry picking of legitimate studies, and the reliance on convenience sample studies to generalize about the entire lgbt community.
There is no one set way to be lgbt, just like there is no one set way to be heterosexual or lgbt.
Anonymous,
you infer that by not being rude, the young lady is "forced" to accept Dana's life.
That is nothing more than semantics. My question was and still is was it necessary to call dana out like that. You don't necessarily do things because you have a way to get away with them.
That's not very Christian.
And from what I read, what she did was an uncalled for, meanspirited attack. And it took away from her message also.
No one is really debating the subject of her letter, only her comment.
If ones strongly believes that gender reassignment surgery is wrong, it is rude to ask people who hold those beliefs to refer to Dana and other transgenders in a pro-noun other than the one anatomically correct at birth.
You have got to be kidding Theresa.
Unlike Dana, who has run for state office and is very open about her life story, most transgender people live their lives quietly and privately like most everyone else. You might run into transgenders at any time and you'd never realize they were born a different gender than they now present. I suddenly feel sorry for you Theresa, because you can't express your religiously based bigotry via the use of pronouns against transgenders who are not as brave as Dr. Beyer.
People with "beliefs" that gender reassignment surgery is "wrong" were not born with those beliefs. You have to be taught to hate. People who choose to adhere to religions that require them to act in hurtful ways to other human beings should be proud of their choices, admit, and celebrate them.
Instead Theresa twists herself into a knot and points out her atheist engineer husband believes sexual orientation is not innate (since he's so sure he must be an ex-gay who chose to go straight), like that's supposed to make her religiously based bigotry somehow acceptable. Nope sorry -- BUZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ that argument doesn't cut it. The Rickmans are just a couple who arrived at their common bigotry from separate paths.
I love it, so anyone who thinks the behavior is wrong, religous or not, is a bigot, automatically.
As well, they must be secretly homosexual or bi-sexual.
Dale and I both think it is wrong, and actually it has nothing to do with religon.
And you calls yourselves tolerant of differing viewpoints ?
Truly amazing.
Theresa
Theresa,
You keep harping on that same tired semantical point of "tolerance" and "victimhood."
The point is that there are many adults and children in America who are lgbt and we should not have to live our lives based on upon your negative beliefs about who we are and what you think we do in the bedroom.
There are lgbts raising children, young lgbts in high schools and in every facet of the America. You don't have to like us or agree with us but it is not fair for folks like yourself to try and manipulate laws and the like to suit your stereotypes.
And we should not have to put blinders on our lives because some psuedo-group has enough money to manipulate data to try and demonstrate the so-called "negative effects of homosexuality."
Furthermore, just because that same group can claim victimhood status and obscure the reality of the situation does not take away from the truth of the matter.
And that truth is this is our America too and we have a right to demand equal time and equal justice.
so anyone who thinks the behavior is wrong, religous or not, is a bigot, automatically.
Those are your words, Theresa. Don't try to force them down my throat.
I'm talking about "your religiously based bigotry via the use of pronouns." You said it is rude to expect people who "strongly believes that gender reassignment surgery is wrong," whether they come to that belief through religion or not, to use pronouns that describe transgenders by the gender they now present. You said doing so "would be crossing the line from tolerance and insisting on acceptance." I disagree; I do not think it's rude to be tolerant of others. I think it's rude to intentionally use male pronouns for transgender women and female pronouns for transgender men.
What "behavior" are you talking about now?
"And that truth is this is our America too and we have a right to demand equal time and equal justice."
Which is exactly why a school curriculum that teaches a one-sided view of the issue is so terribly wrong.
Glad we can agree on something.
I am going to back to working on my expense reports.
It is obvious this discussion is pointless.
theresa
it's rude to intentionally use male pronouns for transgender women and female pronouns for transgender men
one-sided?
it sounds like you want the school to embrace your religious ideas about homosexuality.
the fact of the matter is that a majority, if not all the things, you claim about homosexuality does not stand up on a scientific basis, including the ridiculous idea that homosexuality is a "deadly lifestyle."
Theresa,
I'm actually quite shocked at your statement. Who do you think you are? You don't care for a surgical procedure so you have the right to be rude and not to be called on it? What business is it of yours?
If I had not come out, you would have referred to me as "she." And then if I had come out later you would be so smug and assured in your religious beliefs, because you obviously know nothing about gender identity, that you would feel obligated to switch pronouns? To make what point, exactly?
I made the point earlier -- I present as a woman at all times, and have done so now since Jan 2003. All my documentation states female. I live in women's space, as much as you do. Your gynecologist couldn't tell our anatomy apart. And you have the chutzpah to impose your own beliefs, from wherever they are derived, on to me publicly?
Tell me why I, or anyone else, should ever bother to engage you in conversation when you violate the simplest conventions of human decency. I have never been rude to you, but you feel it's your obligation to be so to me. Please explain.
Theresa said:
"Anonymous said...
" was it necessary to be rude to dana?"
If ones strongly believes that gender reassignment surgery is wrong, it is rude to ask people who hold those beliefs to refer to Dana and other transgenders in a pro-noun other than the
one anatomically correct at birth.
That would be crossing the line from tolerance and insisting on acceptance.
Theresa"
Do you mean rude like when you, for example, called people who support comprehensive sex-ed and lgbt civil rights "murderers?" Or when Ms. Griggs called people who oppose inclusion of ex-gay promotional materials in schools "hypocrites?" Or like the people who think it's OK to call us "fags?" Are those examples of what you mean by rude? I don't think that insisting that people call you what you want to be called is rude.
Yours in the desert,
Robert
" was it necessary to be rude to dana?"
Theresa retorts:
"If ones strongly believes that gender reassignment surgery is wrong, it is rude to ask people who hold those beliefs to refer to Dana and other transgenders in a pro-noun other than the one anatomically correct at birth.
That would be crossing the line from tolerance and insisting on acceptance."
So the answer's Y-E-S, next time have the guts to admit it.
But let's follow that logic.
After your last few posts, I strongly believe that you are a hateful bigot. Based on my "beliefs," should I then MAKE-IT-A-POINT to refer to you as Hateful Bigot when quoting or responding to you?
Would it be "crossing the line from tolerance and insisting on acceptance" if you found that rude and then inisted that I refer to you as just Theresa, which you IDENTIFY as?
THERESA: "I love it, so anyone who thinks the behavior is wrong, religous or not, is a bigot, automatically."
EMPROPH: Yes, defining human BEINGS as-a-behavior IS bigotry, automatically.
THERESA:"Dale and I both think it is wrong, and actually it has nothing to do with religon."
EMPROPH: Yeah I hear that one a lot, it's common sense, right? You're not gay, therefore I shouldn't be gay. Or did you want to expound beyond that as to just HOW and WHY you think I, and every other GLBTQ person on the planet is "wrong" for existing?.. I didn't think so.
Unless of course you have the spine to admit that you're convinced that we're all just delusional and don't know it.. Again, I didn't think so.
"And you calls yourselves tolerant of differing viewpoints ?
Truly amazing.
Theresa"
It is truly amazing. Make sure not to read this next part..
RE TOLERANCE:
Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies
"Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.
In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols.
We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Society_and_Its_Enemies
___
And PS Theresa, I see you linked to WORLD NET DAILY for the Michael Glatze story, which leads me to conclude that you cannot distinguish the difference between propaganda and information that adheres to journalistic standards.
Do you also subscribe to Focus on the Family's Citizenlink for your "information?"
Emproph -
So that last post I believe just as clearly refers to how I feel about the invasion on my values as to how you feel to people standing up for them. Glad you feel you are justified, so do I.
Robert -
I think Regina's use of the word hypocrite is accuate, and found the defense of exclusion of the word ex-gay above not a very strong one. Some people do change, so to tell impressionable young kids that is innate and not possible will lead to more kids in the gay lifestyle which because those who identify as gay have a higher and younger mortality rate will absolutely leads to more deaths. And by the way, EVERY study shows gays have a higher mortality rate. Quote one that doesn't, please. So the use of the word murderer is accurate. So, no, I don't think that was rude either.
Fag or Faggot is a rude word, and I teach my kids not to use it.
Black Tusami -
I don't want the schools to teach a religous view of homosexuality, I want them to teach an accurate one.
That would include modifying the current curriculum to include an ex-gay story, telling me of the increased percentages HIV in the gay population and the lack of protection of condoms during anal sex, telling them that sexual orientation is fluid during adolescent years, backing up to the dictionary's defintion of tolerance and not their made up one, among other things. None of these have anything to do with religon, like you like to claim. They have to do with presenting a objective viewpoint, as opposed to a one-sided one. That would include taking the "innate" stuff out of the curriculum and using the APA definition that they used in the eight grade. That would include removing non factual resources like Holt, and sticking with Glencoe instead. etc, etc. I don't think there was a single religous point in that paragraph.
It is America, Emproph, and I am allowed to think the behavior is wrong ALL DAY LONG. By the way, that, for your edification, is the difference between tolerance and acceptance. And in case you haven't noticed, all the major religons just about agree with me.
Finally, Dana, I do not mean to rude to you. If you notice (and I think this is accurate but don't have time to check previous posts) I typically try to phrase sentences when referring to you so that I don't have to use either pronoun.
Ok, so I am not at the beach because I have to get my expenses done, so I am going back to working on that, will not be checking here for the rest of the day.
theresa
Theresa
If you want an accurate view of homosexuality to be taught then the first thing you need to do is speak out against PFOX, Peter Sprigg, the Family Research Council and those other groups masquerading under the guise of being pro-family while spreading anti-gay propaganda.
If you want to talk about problems with sexual health and the like in the lgbt community (especially the young gay community), then talk about the things that lead to those problems (i.e. homophobia). Do not use any problems to denigrate the community as a whole or pass off that lying notion of "the dangers of the homosexual lifestyle."
You want to talk about problems with anal sex? Then emphasize the fact that anal sex is not dependent on your sexual orientation. Keep people like Peter Sprigg and the like from referring to anal sex as "homosexual behavior."
And you want the "ex-gay" story to be presented so to speak then the first thing u need to do is talk to Regina Griggs and PFOX and get them to disassociate themselves from those so-called pro-family groups who are using the "ex-gay" movement to undermine the lives of lgbts.
You see that is why no one gives the ex-gays any credibility because they see the movement as an offshoot of a group who want to deny lgbts their rights in the public square.
And as I recall, the APA doesn't exactly feel that kindly towards the "ex-gay" movement.
You claim that your beliefs have nothing to do with religion, but look at those who are on your side. They hurt your credibility.
Theresa,
I appreciate that you don't meant to be rude to me, and I accept that. I didn't notice your non-use of pronouns, but to me that's an acceptably polite way for you to live with your feelings, however misguided I may believe them to be, while acting with decency. When I first transitioned, my parents understandably had problems with the pronouns, so I had them call me "Dr." It worked, and within weeks the pronouns were flowing appropriately.
By the way, Maria has still not apologized to me, privately or publicly.
Theresa said to Robert:
" think Regina's use of the word hypocrite is accuate, and found the defense of exclusion of the word ex-gay above not a very strong one. Some people do change, so to tell impressionable young kids that is innate and not possible will lead to more kids in the gay lifestyle which because those who identify as gay have a higher and younger mortality rate will absolutely leads to more deaths. And by the way, EVERY study shows gays have a higher mortality rate. Quote one that doesn't, please. So the use of the word murderer is accurate. So, no, I don't think that was rude either."
In fact, Ms. Griggs ascribed to me the argument that lgbt-favorable materials should be included in schools as a free speech right, but said I opposed the free speech right of people who promote the ex-gay lifestyle; thus, I am a hypocrite. I in fact have never made free speech arguments on this subject. I feel that lgbt-favorable materials are helpful for students and that pro-reparative therapy/conversion ministries materials are potentially harmful. That doesn't make me a hypocrite, it just means that I have strong, clearly articulated thoughts on the subject. My argument that Ms. Griggs was rude was that, because I disagreed with her, she called me a hypocrite in the press.
While I'm on the subject, I shared some of my personal health history with Ms. Griggs many years ago, in an effort to make a personal connection. When I testified for Teachthefacts, she felt compelled to share that info with CRC, and you posted it on your website. Again, is this polite, is this fair, is this charitable, is this Christian? No, it's rude.
As to you calling people murderers: your argument that all studies indicate that lgbt people have a high mortality rate is specious. You base it on Cameron's research. Calling people who aren't killers murderers is really impolite.
To be honest Theresa, I think you feel so strongly that you are correct that you think you are released from the normal constraints of civil society with respect to people you oppose. It's shockingly arrogant of you to feel that you don't have to be polite to others because you are right. Look into your heart: have you ever been wrong on any subject? Have you ever changed your thoughts or feelings on any matter? For all of us (or almost all of us), our opinions and feelings change as we mature or have different experiences. The Apostly Paul describes his own life-changing experience to Luke, who conveys it to us. You should adopt the humility needed to show respect even to people whom you think are dead wrong (unless, of course, you think in your heart of hearts that we are evil spawn of Satan; then feel free to insult away).
Remember, we as humans are imperfect, even religious christians.
Yours among the cacti,
Robert
I don't want the schools to teach a religous view of homosexuality, I want them to teach an accurate one.
That would include modifying the current curriculum to include an ex-gay story
In pursuit of "an accurate view" about ex-gays, the curriculum would have to include the high failure/low success rate of conversion therapies, the high rate of complications (depression, substance abuse, suicidal thoughts), and the most frequent outcome for clients: ex-ex-gay.
Jor-el writes:
"David, you've discussed before here that scientific research indicates that everyone falls somewhere on a continuum of sexuality and few are at one end or the other. In other words, everyone has the capacity for either type of activity. Wouldn't it be reasonable to assume then that they can choose which aspect of their sexuality to develop? Isn't it really sexuality itself that is innate, not preference? And why can't preference for sexuality change when every other type of preference seems to be pliable?"
Others talk about the continuum approach; I have not. In any event, my understanding is that most people, an overwhelming majority of people, are either exclusively heterosexual or homosexual in their FUNDAMENTAL (as opposed to fleeting) attractions. A small percentage is bi-sexual. The proposition you state -- that "few are at one end or the other" -- is not what the research says.
People who are gay who, by societal pressure, seek to live as straight run great psychological risks -- and create serious problems for their spouses and challenges for their chlldren.
You suggest that acceptance of the fact that some people are gay will lead fundamentally straight people to live inauthentic lives as gays. I am extremely skeptical of such a hypothesis -- and I am not aware of any peer-reviewed scientific research supporting it. Likewise, the research does not suggest that sexual orientation is "pliable" for anyone.
Give it a rest said "I specifically used the analagy that 'tallness' contributing to someone being a basketball player is not the same as being 'born' as basketball player".
A poor analogy. People aren't born with a desire to play basketball, but they are born to develop the desire to be with someone of the same or opposite sex. Whether or not someone is tall or short has no bearing on whether or not they enjoy playing basketball. Being born with a feminized brain means one is going to be attracted to men. Being born with a masculinized brain means one is going to be attracted to women - there's no escaping it as the studies by Shidlo and Schroeder and Spitzer have shown.
"but they are born to develop the desire to be with someone of the same or opposite sex"
I'm sure you're an estimable scientific thinker, but you don't know this. Replicated evidence hasn't established it.
Jor-el,
You may pass for a scholar on Krypton, but here you're just a troll.
Jor-el said...
"but they are born to develop the desire to be with someone of the same or opposite sex"
I'm sure you're an estimable scientific thinker, but you don't know this. Replicated evidence hasn't established it.
These facts are well established: Generations of human beings and other living creatures have been documented to consist of individuals of various sexual orientations. All studies of human gays who attempt various conversion therapies (and who are not themselves working in the field and therefore motivated to lie to sell it) have found high failure rates. This innate aspect of personality has proven itself time and time again to exist in many individuals and to be impervious to attempts to alter it.
Everybody knows this, even non-estimable scientific thinkers.
THERESA: "It is America, Emproph, and I am allowed to think the behavior is wrong ALL DAY LONG. By the way, that, for your edification, is the difference between tolerance and acceptance.
I never contested your freedom to believe anything you don’t want to. I do however contest the notion that your clearly biased beliefs should be taught in public schools.
(I’m really sorry for picking on you like this, but this is just too easy. I know it’s hard to believe, but I really do mean that. :) (At least I’m honest about it, and that’s my whole complaint. It’s not about the disagreement between us, it’s about the perception of dishonesty. Buckle up.)
THERESA:"Dale and I both think it is wrong, and actually it has nothing to do with religon."
VS:
THERESA: “And in case you haven't noticed, all the major religons just about agree with me.”
Ignoring the contradiction, next time you might want to add that the logical fallacy of appealing to authority is still en vogue.
Appeal to anonymous authority:
An appeal to authority is made, but the authority is not named. For example, "Experts agree that ..", "scientists say .." or even "they say ..". This makes the information impossible to verify, and brings up the very real possibility that the arguer himself doesn't know who the experts are.
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#they_say (Put that on your favorites, it’s been a godsend for me.)
You may also want to include next time that Focus on the Family, Concerned Women for America, Townhall and World Net Daily, also use the exact same appeal to authority that you do (What a coincidence!). Even though they’re all “Christian” organizations, and believe that all those other religions are heretical and their followers doomed to an eternal hell...
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22all+the+major+religions%22+homosexuality
Or is it a popularity contest? The more people that believe it, the more true it must be?
And what about those other religions. Radical Islam flew those planes into the world trade center, yet you advocate THEIR position on homosexuality to legitimize your position?
And what about the Buddhists and Hindu’s who believe in reincarnation and karma, that "new age" belief. And Dobson knows that ALL new-agers have no absolute truth, no moral compass, and thus no ability to determine right from wrong. Yet THESE are the people you’re using to legitimize your position? PEOPLE LIKE ME? Even though according to you, “it has nothing to do with religon.”
Like I said, you can think and believe anything you want, but when you want to teach propaganda in the public school system, you’ve crossed the line.
Theresa said " Some people do change, so to tell impressionable young kids that is innate and not possible will lead to more kids in the gay lifestyle which because those who identify as gay have a higher and younger mortality rate will absolutely leads to more deaths. And by the way, EVERY study shows gays have a higher mortality rate. Quote one that doesn't, please. So the use of the word murderer is accurate.".
Theresa, black people have a higher mortality rate and I don't hear you saying its wrong to be black which would be consistent with your "logic". The fact is that any problems in the gay community, like in the black community, have nothing to do with being gay and everything to do with being a persecuted minority who's society has been crushed. Its people like you and your bigotry who are causing higher mortality rates in the gay and black community, If anyone's a murderer its people like you.
"Like I said, you can think and believe anything you want, but when you want to teach propaganda in the public school system, you’ve crossed the line."
Emproph -
You are the one teaching propoganda in the public schools.
According to COMAR, what is taught in the public schools must be "factually correct".
There is no factual basis that sexual orientation is innate. The BOE made that up. No facts behind that guys - none whatsover. They just decided to add that statement on the fly at a vote with no review. I am actually glad that they did that.
You see, what is taught in the public school according to MD state law must be "factually correct". And there is no factual basis for that made up statement.
No one know what causes it. THat's the truth - not this innate stuff they added at the last minute.
So who is teaching proproganda, Emproph ? And again, I said I didn't believe that the behavior was moral, I didn't say that the school should teach that.
THeresa
So you were not born a heterosexual Theresa? Tell us, when did you decide to become one?
You are avoiding the question.
What factual study can you point to that the BOE can use as backup for its claim that homosexuality is innate ?
Every study that demonstrates the high failure rate of attempted conversion therapy is evidence of the innate nature of sexual orientation.
Not to mention the studies that show that same chromosone deactivation in a mother makes her far more likely to have a gay son, the more older brothers a boy has the more likely he is to be gay, brain stuctures in gay males are similar to brain structures in heterosexual females, gays have different finger print patterns than heterosexuals, gays have different finger lengths than heterosexuals,gay males have similar eyeblink rates, hearing, and startle responses to heterosexual females, gay males react to straight male pheremones in the same way as heteroeseuxal females, gay males have similar linguistic abilities to straight females, lesbians have similar math and spatial relations abilities to straight males, gays have different finger lenghts from straights, and on and on. Taken together the conclusion from these studies is inescapable - being gay is innate.
"Every study that demonstrates the high failure rate of attempted conversion therapy is evidence of the innate nature of sexual orientation." I am not suggesting that they teach reparative therapy. I am just suggesting that they point out that some people do change. Thus, an ex-gay story would be appropriate. Randi - this link has a number of studies about the topic. http://www.mcpscurriculum.com/innate.shtml and the american pychiatric association has this to say : American Psychiatric Association, “there are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality.”
Besides which, the eighth grade curriculum in one place has the innate statement and in the other they use the APA definition. Now come on, even you guys realize that the curriculum should be consistent, yes ? theresa
The statements of the major medical associations are all consistent, Theresa, within the standards of medical practice.
I have yet to see any evidence of anyone who has changed their sexual orientation or gender identity. I do not believe it's possible. I have never said that one can't convince oneself of the opposite, even for the entirety of one's life, for whatever reason. After all, I managed that myself for over forty years. I also have never said that one could not behave in any manner, consistent or inconsistent with one's nature. That doesn't equate to a change in one's biology.
Why don't we simply be honest here -- you do not think homosexual behavior is acceptable. In your case for religious reasons, with others it could be any of a variety of reasons. Fine, you're entitled to your opinion and your theological beliefs. But sexual diversity is a reality, and you're not helping anyone with all this obfuscation. Ex-gays are not a biological phenomenon, and saying it won't make it so.
"I have yet to see any evidence of anyone who has changed their sexual orientation or gender identity."
Dr, what evidence could there possibly be? No matter the testimony, you say that the person has deluded themselves or never had same-gender attraction to begin with or some other variation. The immutability is not a scientific fact because there is no way to confirm or deny.
You can have your opinion but, based on "evidence"?
Please.
"Why don't we simply be honest here -- you do not think homosexual behavior is acceptable."
No one denied that any more than you have denied that you think it is acceptable.
So what?
"But sexual diversity is a reality, and you're not helping anyone with all this obfuscation."
The fact that there are people that don't conform to social norms is not being obfuscated by anyone. The nature and the cause are the issue.
"Ex-gays are not a biological phenomenon, and saying it won't make it so."
No one said it was. According to the APA, there is no evidence that homosexuality is a biological phenomena either. Theresa posted their statement above:
“there are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality.”
Jor-el, you're a simple-minded jerk.
There is, as the statement says, no studies pointing to a single etiology of homosexuality. Why? Because sexual identity and orientation are complex developmental phenomena. There are already over 54 genes known to be involved in human sexual development before there is a drop of hormone flowing, and that doesn't include the brain itself.
And you still haven't presented a single case of anyone who has changed his or her sexual orientation, from straight to gay or gay to straight. Some may try, but all fail.
Dana - did you miss this post... what do you think these people were, then... So, question for you, Micheal Glazte ...
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56487
He was alway innately heterosexual and just confused and thought he was homosexual ? Or he was innately homosexual and is now innately heterosexual ? Or he chose to behave in a homosexual fashion and then decided to abandon that desire..
How about Charlene Cothran - same question... she was really always heterosexual even though she spent 29 years living as a lesbian ? (the better part of her adult life). That would make her innately a lesbian, wouldn't it ...
and she's confused trying to act like a heterosexual.
How about Ann Heche ... Ellen Degeneres sometime girlfriend who married a man. Bi-sexual ? Lesbian ? Heterosexual..
Theresa
I don't know the first two people, and fron what I've heard of Anne Heche she's bi. Many woman are bi, and don't mind experimenting on both sides. There's even a term for college women who do so --LUGs -- lesbians until graduation. These women simply don't seem to have a strong predisposition either way.
With men it's different, as there appear to be far fewer bisexual men around. That's just the way it is.
I've said it many times -- humans are capable of a host of sexual behaviors, and there is a big difference between our innate orientation and what we do with it. I passed as a heterosexual male for fifty years, with only a few people knowing the truth from my childhood. So by your positing of the question, you would say, upon reading my biography, that I was a man for fifty years, and now I'm a woman -- so which is it?
As I've explained, I've always been a woman, because my brain told me so, but was assigned male at birth because I had male genitals. My brain has developed as brains do, but it has not changed its sex over the years. My genitals were changed by me. Because as a society until very recently we simply coded sex by genital appearance, people like me were forced to lead miserable lives. Now we know better, and understand the primacy of brain sex and hence, gender identity. And I can say that even some of the most right-wing psychiatrists out there recognize this reality today. All you need to do is Google "intersex" and you can read for days about things we've known for a long time but have deliberately kept hidden.
Theresa, it's been my experience that most people consider their sexual orientation to be fixed.
Granted, some people are bisexual, and some report changing attractions over their lives. Come to think of it, would that be an acceptable way of describing sexual orientation, as opposed to teaching that is definitively "innate?"
If that's not acceptable, how would you put it in a way that would be respectful of the views of both parties?
You continue to isolate your condemnation of homosexuality as being a condemnation of the of "behavior," without acknowledging the fact that people like me (at least me specifically) are incapable of loving and being loved by someone other than that of the same gender.
Would you personally deny me this happiness? The happiness that I'm assuming you feel with your husband.
And if need be, pretend my partner and I are celibate for "moral" reasons. It happens.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/beds/bucks/herts/5236132.stm
I'm not asking for your agreement, I'm asking for some candor.
You continue to tout "ex-gay" as a legitimate sexual orientation, even though it's neither homosexual, heterosexual, nor bisexual, yet when it comes to those of us who consider our same gender attraction as definitive and fixed, you speak of your objection to "the behavior."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I hear from you, is that homosexuality is not fixed, but heterosexuality is.
Is this what you believe, or some variation of it?
-Patrick
I don't think heterosexuality is fixed, either, as the behavior of men in jail shows. I think, as the APA thinks, that is a combination of factors. I don't believe it is innate, and I think it wrong to teach factually inaccurate information to kids - esp when they are not including anything about the fact that same sex attraction are more prevalent in the teenage years. When you tell them it is "innate" and then don't tell them that attraction can change during early years, you are harming the kids. Period. theresa
Theresa,
I would think that someone like you who immerses herself in all things homosexual would recognize that situational homosexuality has always occurred under specific conditions. Do you really believe that the sex drive is so weak that it wouldn't manifest in that way? If you stuck a gay man and woman together in prison they would probably have sex after a short while, too. So what? What does that behavior have to do with the feelings you have for another person, regardless of their gender? What is it you're so afraid of?
Theresa said: "I don't think heterosexuality is fixed, either, as the behavior of men in jail shows."
Prison rape? A penis in an anus is your definition of my desire to love and be loved, EVEN IF--as I already stated--"my partner and I are celibate?"
If the only thing separating you from "being" a lesbian is to be raped by another woman, then I agree with you about orientation, it should not be considered "fixed" by anyone.
I think the problem that you may not be seeing is that most of us, gay or straight, don't reduce our human desire to love and be loved to mere genital contact.
Theresa said: "esp when they are not including anything about the fact that same sex attraction are more prevalent in the teenage years. When you tell them it is "innate" and then don't tell them that attraction can change during early years, you are harming the kids."
Since you consider it a "fact." What sources CAN YOU CITE that show same sex attraction is more prevalent during the teenage years--AS-OPPOSED-TO--being experimentaion due to teenage horniness?
And at that point, what would it matter, since from what I gather, you consider attraction and behavior to be the same thing?
And since you've already established that neither homo nor hetero behavior/orientation is innate, Why would you want to teach kids that their heterosexual attractions might just be a phase, and that they should hold out for the possibility that they may indeed be homosexual?
-Patrick
Theresa said: "So who is teaching proproganda, Emproph ?"
Theresa, I am a first hand eye witness to the "phenomenon" called same sex attraction.
You are using third party assertions (Michael Glatze, Charlene Cothran, Citizenlink, WND, et al) to claim that my eye-witness is invalid.
If this is what you believe, so be it.
But every "decidedly" LGBTQ person like me, speaks from the heart, not from a third party source with a political agenda to suppress the first hand eye witness account, of me and every other LGBTQ person on the planet.
This is how I determine the difference between propaganda and information that adheres to journalistic standards. One is not only more accurate than the other, but the other (propaganda) was designed to decieve as well.
Which makes this question by Anonymous all the MORE appropriate:
"So you were not born a heterosexual Theresa? Tell us, when did you decide to become one?"
To which you replied:
"You are avoiding the question."
In fact it is precisely the question, if, indeed, you would like to speak from a 'factual' basis, in regard to the mutability of gender attraction.
No one other than Michael Glatze and Charlene Cothran are in a position to speak for Micael Glatze and Charlene Cothran.
For you to use them, to speak for me, and every other LGBTQ person on the planet, is to bear false witness. For you to demand that we speak for them, is to demand that we bear false witness against them.
Like me, you are only truly in a position to speak factually from first hand eye-witness experience. Thus the question--as flip as you may perceive it to be--does indeed apply:
"So you were not born a heterosexual Theresa? Tell us, when did you decide to become one?"
-Patrick
Teresa, this is a perfect opportunity for you to make your point by telling us about your decision to be heterosexual. Once you start, then others can come forward with their stories. Pretty soon, the gay agenda will be destroyed, as it is revealed that sexual orientation really is a choice.
You start, here's your chance to change history simply by being honest.
Tell us. When did you decide?
Post a Comment
<< Home