APA Session Called Off
The American Psychiatric Association was going to have a forum on religious perspectives on homosexuality at their convention, looks like a lot of it was going to be about ministering to gay people who don't want to be gay for religious reasons. There has been controversy since this thing was first announced, as you might expect. Warren Throckmorton was going to be on the panel -- if you've been following our story here, you will know that name, he co-authored an early paper complaining about our county's new sex-ed curriculum, and spoke at a meeting of the Citizens for a Responsible Whatever a couple of years ago. He's a psychologist at a small Christian college, the patron professor of their side. He talks like an academic, but the bottom line for him is that gay people whose religion prohibits homosexuality should learn to change, at least counselors and psychologists should have some techniques for helping them become overcome their God-given sexuality. It is a very insidious approach, where he can appear to express empathy for everyone, including those who believe their own natural feelings of love are dirty and wrong.
Wayne Besen had a press release yesterday:
Throckmorton confirms the rumor on his blog:
This was going to be the big chance for the reparative-therapy advocates to pretend that there is something legitimate about what they do. You might remember that the intelligent design people got a paper published once in a minor biology journal, and made a big deal out of the fact. Their side needs this sort of thing, it is all-too-obvious that reparative therapy -- a kind of psychotherapy that is supposed to make gay people stop being so gay -- has no scientific support or basis, and it would have been good for them to have this conference session, so they could link the APA's name to what they do. Looks like it's not going to happen.
Wayne Besen had a press release yesterday:
New York - Sources have informed TruthWinsOut.org that Monday's symposium featuring infamous "ex-gay" therapist Dr. Warren Throckmorton may be canceled. The forum, "A Pastoral Approach for Gay & Lesbian People Troubled by Homosexuality," suffered a major blow when panelist, Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson, pulled out of the event. Robinson expressed concern that the symposium, scheduled to take place the same week as the APA's annual meeting in Washington, would be used as a public relations gimmick for Focus on the Family.
"The cancellation of this forum is welcome news because it gave the wrong impression that the American Psychiatric Association endorsed 'ex-gay' therapy, when, in fact, the organization soundly rejects such therapies," said TWO Executive Director Wayne Besen.
Predictably, on his blog, Throckmorton claimed that the APA is "apparently afraid of a conversation." What he conveniently failed to mention was that this discussion ended three decades ago and his side was defeated because they lacked scientific credibility. They have yet to provide a shred of evidence supporting the efficacy of ex-gay therapy, while there is evidence that such methods cause a great deal of harm.
"Throckmorton 'counsels' vulnerable gay people to either live a lifetime of loneliness or a lifetime of lies.This is neither healthy nor therapeutic and it's a diagnosis for disaster," said Besen.
Throckmorton confirms the rumor on his blog:
What a difference a day makes.
The American Psychiatric Association program Homosexuality and Therapy: The Religious Dimension has been pulled by chair David Scasta. My understanding is that he was asked (by whom, I am still not clear) to pull the program because of increasing concerns about it. I am still hearing more about the reasons and hope to know something more clearly soon.
Dr. Scasta did tell me that the APA’s position is that the program was not pulled because gay activists were unhappy with it. At this moment, I am skeptical.
More to come… The APA symposium on homosexuality, therapy and religion has been cancelled
This was going to be the big chance for the reparative-therapy advocates to pretend that there is something legitimate about what they do. You might remember that the intelligent design people got a paper published once in a minor biology journal, and made a big deal out of the fact. Their side needs this sort of thing, it is all-too-obvious that reparative therapy -- a kind of psychotherapy that is supposed to make gay people stop being so gay -- has no scientific support or basis, and it would have been good for them to have this conference session, so they could link the APA's name to what they do. Looks like it's not going to happen.
posted by JimK at 9:13 AM
41 Comments:
Jim - You attended the talk I presented and indicated agreement with it at the meeting. I am very surprised to see you pile on here with the "reparative therapy" stuff.
Ask yourself why NARTH has not promoted this symposium as some kind of benefit to their work. They know my work is not reparative therapy and this symposium brings no benefit to them.
Warren, I did attend your talk and didn't hear anything there that I would disagree with. You might remember that your video didn't work, and you had to stop before you got to the end of your presentation. I saw your Powerpoint and watched your video online as I recall, and if you had included the omitted material I would have disagreed with you.
You make a distinction between "reparative therapy" and something else that you do, but almost nobody else can detect the difference. The core assumption in both instances is that some people can and should be treated psychotherapeutically for loving someone when their religion says they shouldn't.
In an enlightened society we make an effort to accept people who differ from us when we know they do no harm, we don't look for ways to change them. The fact that your therapy technique differs from someone else's seems to me to be more of a red herring than anything else, it's the same thing, you just do it differently.
JimK
"In an enlightened society we make an effort to accept people who differ from us when we know they do no harm, we don't look for ways to change them."
And, yet, if someone believes their faith is more important than some transitory hedonistic impulses, TTF would not accept that- it would want to change these people.
The gay advocacy movement pushes its agenda by intimidation and suppression of discussion. They did this years ago when they pressured the APA into removing homosexuality from its list of mental disorders. They do it now trying to prevent a public discussion on bills to provide advantaged treatment to transgenders.
This no doubt what happened here to the APA session. Remember, this is not a public policy discussion. It was merely a dialogue about how science could help religious people overcome conflicting emotions.
Which threatens TTF enormously because they like to use science for political purposes.
Seems to me that reparative therapy is a misguided form of recruitment. The ex-gay movement for me had aspects of a cult.
The notion of patients' rights to self-determination is a red
herring; in medicine, anyone adult may seek any treatment they choose, but licensed practitio ners may not administer such treatments under the aegis of medical societies and the state licensing board.
I think such misguided efforts to change orientation to match patients religion-based wishes is malpractice. As an analogy, say I went to an oncologist for leukemia; if I believed that I could pray away the cancer, I could engage a prayer group to aid me in doing so, but for the physician not to treatment me according to standards of care (i.e. science-based treatments) would be unethical.
Warren, I think I understand your desire to help people match their sexual orientation to the tenets of their faiths. I just don't think it works.
Warren,
I believe you're a rational, decent and charming man. Of all the people on "the other side," I find you the most responsible. You've been quoted as saying you'd like there to be some sort of theologically-based protocol for gay folks who are conflicted about reconciling their orientation with their faith.
I have no problem with that, and I imagine each religious group has something of the sort already. I wonder, though, why you think it would an appropriate subject for discussion at the APA?
The APA might want to discuss the treatment option for those gay people who've been through conversion therapy and ex-gay ministries and are dealing with the trauma of those experiences. Of course, if there has been no trauma there is no need for intervention.
It just seems to me that you're fishing for science to affirm the need for, or support the contention of, the validity of religious support for conversion. Just as the APA has no business intervening in faith community discussions on this topic or any other, the faith communities have no business looking for some credibilty from the scientific community.
Anon,
As long as you keep framing this about "hedonism" and refuse to challenge your own religious tenets, you will have zero credibility.
As for a "public discussion" on the trans issue, we're having it right here. What's your problem with that?
"As long as you keep framing this about "hedonism" and refuse to challenge your own religious tenets, you will have zero credibility."
As long as you say religious tenets are unacceptable if they don't coincide with any carnal desires a person may have, you're detriment to society.
"As for a "public discussion" on the trans issue, we're having it right here. What's your problem with that?"
My problem is that this is a limited group with no influence. The dialogue you oppose is where voters are empowered to make a decision on public policy based on the conversation. You oppose legitimate democratic processes and have sought to prevent them.
AnonFreak said:
"My problem is that this is a limited group with no influence. The dialogue you oppose is where voters are empowered to make a decision on public policy based on the conversation. You oppose legitimate democratic processes and have sought to prevent them."
Oh, AnonFreak. TTF has no problem with letting voters decide on something like this. However, the lies the CRG used to gather these [fake] petition signatures were unlawful and CRG needs to take responsibility for their poor, sad, pathetic, and illegal actions.
"TTF has no problem with letting voters decide on something like this. However, the lies the CRG used to gather these [fake] petition signatures were unlawful and CRG needs to take responsibility for their poor, sad, pathetic, and illegal actions."
Drick, the focus on stopping a referendum rather simply trying to win it shows clearly that TTF fears that their baseless assertions about public opinion in Montgomery County will be proven false.
If not, they'd be anxious to have this vote to demonstrate how much support the gay agenda has in Montgomery County.
But, thank you for sharing, Drick!
And, yet, if someone believes their faith is more important than some transitory hedonistic impulses, TTF would not accept that- it would want to change these people.
BS! Sexual orientation and gender identity are not "transitory hedonistic impulses" nor are TTF supporters in the business of "changing" anyone. TTF supporters accept people regardless of their sexual orientation and gender identity. The people who expect conformity to some supposed god-given way are the shower nuts and their reparative therapy quacks, Throckmoron and Richard Cohen.
"TTF supporters accept people regardless of their sexual orientation and gender identity. The people who expect conformity to some supposed god-given way are the shower nuts and their reparative therapy quacks, Throckmoron and Richard Cohen."
Oh sure, TTF will accept any variety of sexual deviance. What they have trouble accepting is anyone who feels they shouldn't surrender to every transitory hedonistic impulse. If you want to seek help with that, TTF wants to make sure no professional can help you. Indeed, anyone who wants to stop being gay will be treated the same way a cult would treat a member who wants to quit.
TTF is a gangrene on society.
And the insults just keep on comin'!
Sorry, Wyatt, but I am as unlikely to put your rights to your religious beliefs up to a vote as I am to allow mine to be voted upon by "the people." If you had managed to lawfully force a referendum then we would have dealt with it. Since you couldn't do so, and the judge will have the final say on that, then you won't get the opportunity.
To try to claim democratic legitimacy for this fear-mongering attempt of the CRG is not at all unexpected, but it won't work.
Of course, you still refuse to provide any data to back up your organization's claims, simply constantly falling back on absurd terms such as "hedonistic impulses." You should be ashamed, but, of course, you won't be.
"I am as unlikely to put your rights to your religious beliefs up to a vote as I am to allow mine to be voted upon by "the people.""
Nobody's talking about any rights. We're talking about whether discrimination legislation is necessary for people based on their sexual desires. Go ahead and vote on whether someone has to hire anyone regardless of their religious beliefs. I could care less. The Constitution doesn't bestow the right to employment or anyone, or dining out at any particular restaurant or to use any bathroom you'd like.
"If you had managed to lawfully force a referendum then we would have dealt with it. Since you couldn't do so, and the judge will have the final say on that, then you won't get the opportunity."
I had nothing to do with the referendum other than signing it upon request by a group of responsible citizens.
Interesting how you think you know the outcome of the case already. I know you've been accused of taking some actions of dubious legality to try and prevent the democratic process but I assume even you are not trying to bribe a judge.
"Of course, you still refuse to provide any data to back up your organization's claims,"
Well, it's not my organization but perhaps if you could share with us what claims you're talking about, someone would respond.
AnonFreak-
Obviously all the praying I have been doing for you to get over your insecurities and release yourself from self-hatred are not working.
I guess I will just have to pray harder (isn't that what you freaks tell gay people to do to "turn straight" --and also see no results?)
Forgive AnonFreak, Father, for it knows not what it does.
Sexual orienation - not sexual desire. There is a difference, anonymous.
Also, Mr. Throckmorton, I think that part of the blame for the cancellation of the symposium has to lie in the hands of Focus on the Family and their P.R. machine.
They got one of the participants, Gene Robinson, alarmed as to how they were incorrectly spinning the symposium in the eyes of the public, many of whom probably would not have attended the symposium.
Well, we knew this was coming. Link is via Throcmorton's pad, and oh so surprisingly from the Moony Times:
Gay activists shut down APA panel
Yep, that's right. Yet again, the gays foil the APA.
And once again, that title brought to you by the Sun Myung Moon-Times.
'Memeber the "moonies" from the seventies that your mother warned you about?
That's him.
You know very well, Wyatt, that I've never dealt with my sexual orientation on this blog. I generally only discuss gender identity and expression. That you conflate that with "sexual desire" only proves how narrow-minded and ignorant you are and choose to remain.
As I said, I have no idea how the judge will rule. I do know that all the signatures have been evaluated and the analysis will be presented to the defense and then the judge as required. If precedent is followed, a huge number of signatures will be disqualified, far more than is necessary to remove the certification.
You're correct that the Constitution doesn't discuss employment or accommodations in its original form. That's why we have amendments and new legislation.
As for the issues, you know what they are, since I've told you. Show me the evidence of trans persons being predators or pedophiles. If you can't, or you admit there isn't any, then I would like Theresa to revise her website and send out a blast email to her supporters admitting that, and then to hold interviews with CWA and TVC and worldnetdaily to correct the record. It's the least she can do. I have tried to have civil discussions with her, and have managed on a few occasions. If she doesn't subscribe to the pedophilia theory, then she should say so publicly, renounce those followers who have used that as fear-mongering (and there are dozens of emails to prove it) and I won't hold her responsible moving forward.
Warren,
Is your current position that sexual orientation is not a choice, but is just the way people are; and that some gay people may choose celibacy because they want to act in a manner consistent with the theology of their religious denomination?
If so, then is your view that mental health professionals ought to help people who choose to be celibate on theological grounds find ways to be happy without physical intimacy?
David Fishback
Andrea-not anon
The Moonies take money for what they print. They were going to publish a big "expose" on ritalin being overprescribed in the inner city(DC) -in return for big scientology ads. Unfortunately for the Moonies and the Scientologists, they had(for a time) a responsible science writer who learned that in the inner city - kids weren't getting a lot of ritalin or much of any other kind of psychiatric or basic medical care or medication. The big two part story was reduced to a short buried article.
Considering the declining readership of real newspapers- does the Times sell any papers or ads- or is it still supported by Moon's other businesses?
"Show me the evidence of trans persons being predators or pedophiles."
I've never said they were and don't know of any evidence either way. It could be that they are more susceptible to it than normal people but I don't know of any evidence and again have never said otherwise. Theresa hasn't either, as far as I know. I have, however, seen you twist her words to draw that conclusion, so I assume that's what you're doing now.
What you twisted is when they say the law will provide an opportunity for sexual predators to pretend to be trangenders to gain access to women's rooms. Not the same thing. You've had this explained to you before so you can't claim that you simply misunderstand.
Are trans people sexual predators? In the words of your hero, Hillary Clinton, not as far as I know.
So, basically, AnonFreak... you have nothing to stand on? Not shocking.
Thank you for saying so, Wyatt. However, and there are two points here --
1) I have heard her minions say just that -- that trans women are mentally ill men who will rape women and children in bathrooms and showers. I have read similar emails. So while Theresa may have been cautious enough not to say so herself (and I don't recall, and haven't the time to do a through check), I did show you the quote from the website which alleges the same.
2) Claiming that predators are just waiting for this law to go into effect is really no different in terms of hate-mongering; the only difference is that it isn't slander.
You don't know this to be the case, unless you are such a predator yourself or know someone who is. I will assume neither is true. Therefore, you must have some evidence that such incidents of predation have occurred in this country in some of the other jurisdictions with similar laws. Otherwise, your statements are delusional and paranoid, or simply hateful and designed to imply to people that, indeed, trans women are potential pedophiles. Maybe CRG crafted this campaign simply to get the signatures to force a referendum, believing the ends justified the means. But if there is no fear of such predation in the first place, then why go to all the trouble? Why would Adol make a total fool of himself in public if he really didn't believe the hate?
And once the petition is rejected, will Theresa apologize for the fear-mongering?
Dana wrote;
"And once the petition is rejected, will Theresa apologize for the fear-mongering?"
You are kidding right? Theresa will never do this as she believes that everyone deserves her telling them how to think, feel and how to raise their children.
If the petition is rejected Theresa will move on to another item and then do the same. She loves this stuff.
Theresa clearly displays that her morals and beliefs are the end all to everything no matter how much hatefuleness is spewed along her path(even by herself much less others).
Ted
If you check out www.mcpscurriculum.com , Therea Rickman, etc. are still attacking the sex-ed curriculum. I don't understand why Theresa thinks she needs to be present when everyone in Montgomery County is having sex. Why, oh, why is she so addicted to sex (and the sex lives of others)?
Why doesn't she look at neutral, non-bias data to understand that abstanance-only education is NOT working and that we need to empower our students (and for some of us, our children) so that they can protect themselves?????
Why doesn't Theresa Rickman leave this up to the professionals who know what they are doing and don't want our children to become infected with Sexually Trasmitted Infections or pregnant outside of marriage?
Nope... she would rather raise the teenage pregnancy rate and block contraception/protected as it is not for pro-creative purposes. SICKO!
Oh, and BTW-- GO HILLARY!!
"Why doesn't she look at neutral, non-bias data to understand that abstanance-only education is NOT working"
Unfortunately, Drick, no data on either side of this debate is "non-bias". This is the problem. Virtually every finding in the field of sexual studies defies replication. It's probably because there really aren't any professionals working in the field who didn't have a preconceived mission when they chose to enter it.
When can look at societal trends however. The introduction of comp sex ed in the 70s was closely followed by an explosion in teen pregnancy. This explosion began to moderate in the 90s as ab only programs grew in popularity.
Nationwide statistics. How's that for "non-bias"?
"So while Theresa may have been cautious enough not to say so herself"
Incredible rationalization for your actions on this blog. You've accused Theresa of doing something that you now acknowledge you don't know is true.
I assume your apology is in preparation and will be eloquent and sincere.
Why would anyone apologize to someone who only wants to ruin the lives of others, AnonFreak?
How very UN-Christian indeed.
Listen, Wyatt,
Theresa has at least had the decency to sign her name to her posts here on this blog, or at least to some of them.I have said I don't remember her exact words over the past six months, and I'm not going to make the effort now to check.
I do know, however, that her website has been much clearer, and I, and others, know from first-hand experience that her surrogates have been saying such things routinely without a hint of hesitation.
This is nothing unique in political discourse. How many times have candidates' surrogates used vile language, lies and misrepresentations while the candidates claim innocence? Sometimes the candidate is innocent, and in those instances the candidate often apologizes and fires the surrogate. More often than not the surrogate has been asked to speak when the candidate cannot.
So, yes, it's quite possible that Theresa is not guilty of slander in the legal sense, but she is clearly guilty of group slander which is protected speech. That doesn't change its immorality.
Now, I have also complimented her when we've had civil discussions, and we've even managed agreement on some occasions. I recall her saying she didn't mind if I used the same locker room as she, nor other women who happen to be post-op. Good.
She also said that sharing a changing room with a pre-op trans woman would make her feel uncomfortable. I replied, and have repeatedly said that in such instances accommodations are made to respect the privacy of not only the clientele at large but the trans woman herself. That's the reality, and I don't think Theresa is stupid so she must know that trans women have been managing such accommodations for decades and she's just been unaware.
Where we differ is that she believes her discomfort trumps my right to live my life. I disagree, as did the Council and Exec and all the other jurisdictions. Again, in circumstances of physical intimacy accommodations are made, and to state otherwise is a bald-faced lie with no evidentiary back-up. That she might be uncomfortable hiring a trans person, or renting to one, is obviously true and I understand it, but it simply doesn't rise to the level of the rights of trans persons to employment and housing. She can get over it with education and exposure; we cannot just get over it.
So we have found grounds for agreement, and I imagine that when some time has passed she will have become more familiar with the concept and won't be so upset. If I can learn to live among fundamentalists, she can learn to live among trans persons. This is America, after all.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Here we go, Wyatt. Don't think I didn't notice your slur, btw.
I don't have time to go through all the posts, but here's one quote from Theresa I recall.
For context, I'm sure you recognize that straight men frequently flash women, and straight women,in various states of undress, are flashing men much of the time, too. I know of no report where a trans woman has ever flashed anyone.
Here's Theresa's quote:
"Though I really don't believe that Dana pre-op would have flashed some
child in the ladies room, I do believe many transgenders would. Again, for the shock factor."
November 27, 2007
And here's that quote from the home page of the showernuts:
"No longer will women and girls be able to feel completely safe in the most private and personal bathroom and locker facilities of schools, public pools, malls, stores, health clubs, restaurants and other such public places throughout the county."
Now, you can read that paragraph either as :
a) trans women are dangerous predators so be very scared, or
b) we know pedophiles who are reading The Gazette and are just lying in wait for this to be enacted so, again, be very scared.
I don't owe Theresa an apology, and when I have misspoken in the past I have, indeed, apologized to whomever I offended.
The comment was deleted because of the slur. Dana, I think your response still makes sense without that context.
JimK
I'll say one other thing, Wyatt.
I don't believe you're reachable; you're too far gone. I don't believe you're worth the effort to educate, and the only reason I engage with you is because it's instructive to others who read this blog. If you didn't exist we might have to create you to have any dialogue, so on balance having you here is a good thing, even with all the insults and slurs.
Theresa, otoh, is someone I believe is reachable, and that is why I have engaged with her personally. She has generally kept the personal attacks to a minimum, certainly compared with you and your friends, though the interviews with TVC and CWA were out of bounds. Still, she does show some rationality, and I feel she is worth the effort in spite of all the damage she does. Politics is dialogue not only with one's friends but with one's adversaries.
"an insulting or disparaging remark or innuendo"
Definition of slur. TTFers direct these at me all the time. Never seen Jim delete one of those remarks.
Furthermore, to refer to the Dr by the Dr's birth name is neither insulting or disparaging or innuendo. It is simply calling someone by a name they don't want to be referred to, which when you think of it, is exactly what the Dr has been doing.
"If you didn't exist we might have to create you to have any dialogue, so on balance having you here is a good thing, even with all the insults and slurs."
This is a point I've made to you guys many times. My contribution is to allow you to have a counterpoint for your arguments then you occassionally get irritated and fly off the handle. Whenever I stop commenting, you simply make up fictitious posters with comments easy to counter.
"Theresa, otoh, is someone I believe is reachable,"
You've already insulted Theresa enough. BTW:
"Though I really don't believe that Dana pre-op would have flashed some
child in the ladies room, I do believe many transgenders would. Again, for the shock factor."
is not saying transgenders are predators- or that all transgenders are flashers. It is talking about the aggressive gay advocates who are always trying to push the envelope and would take advantage of this law. You trying to deny they exist?
You still haven't found a statement where Theresa said transgenders are predators. You still need to apologize.
I'm not taking the time to look for quotes. Sorry, Wyatt.
Using anything but my legal name is wrong and insulting. I don't give a damn whether you like it or not. I could call you "Sally" right now and that would be disparaging and demeaning, because I would bet it's not your legal name. Of course, you still behave in a cowardly manner by not coming out, so you have no standing to criticize on that account.
We've never had to make you up, because you just can't resist posting here. I dare you to prove that we have.
And, yes I am denying that. You are so paranoid that the more outrageous your comment the more likely you believe it to be true. I have said it before -- there are no incidents of such events occurring, and for you to even insinuate that they would occur here is fear-mongering and hate speech. That you would go so far as to stage a hoax is proof that you know it not to be true so you had to deceive those whom you are trying to scare to gain some traction with them. Your behavior, and Theresa's because she is your leader, is despicable.
Andrea- not anon
Amen, Dana!
"I'm not taking the time to look for quotes."
You already did, as is obvious by your referring to some other remark you didn't like. You couldn't find anything and you owe Theresa an apology.
"Using anything but my legal name is wrong and insulting."
Oh, really? Why?
"I don't give a damn whether you like it or not."
When did I say you did?
"I could call you "Sally" right now and that would be disparaging and demeaning, because I would bet it's not your legal name. Of course, you still behave in a cowardly manner by not coming out, so you have no standing to criticize on that account."
I prefer to remain anonymous. You prefer to be referred to as a gender other than your biological one. If you don't respect my wishes, why should I respect yours. You might note that I've never used your birth name here before and only did so yesterday in a way that wouldn't be apparent to a casual reader and only after repeated provocation.
"We've never had to make you up, because you just can't resist posting here. I dare you to prove that we have."
I only know that whenever I stop making comments, someone immediately takes my place. You're right, though, it's probably just a coincidence.
Point is you and Jim could delete my comments at any time but don't because I provide a contribution by giving you a target for your argumentation.
"And, yes I am denying that. You are so paranoid that the more outrageous your comment the more likely you believe it to be true. I have said it before -- there are no incidents of such events occurring, and for you to even insinuate that they would occur here is fear-mongering and hate speech."
Oh, please. We'll all seen the gay pride parades. Shocking behavior is seen as a advocacy vehicle.
"That you would go so far as to stage a hoax is proof that you know it not to be true so you had to deceive those whom you are trying to scare to gain some traction with them."
I've never done such a thing. I have only noted here that you have no proof that CRG did either.
"Your behavior, and Theresa's because she is your leader, is despicable.
Other than occasionally exchange a brief remark on this blog, I don't think I've ever had any interaction with Theresa. I am on the e-mail list, but I think you guys are too.
Anon quoted and said:
“"Though I really don't believe that Dana pre-op would have flashed some
child in the ladies room, I do believe many transgenders would. Again, for the shock factor."
is not saying transgenders are predators- or that all transgenders are flashers. It is talking about the aggressive gay advocates who are always trying to push “the envelope and would take advantage of this law. You trying to deny they exist?”
No, it is not saying the ALL transgendered folks are flashers, just the some of them are. And, BTW, isn’t the enough to keep that enough to repeal this hopelessly flawed bill (23-07)? You don’t need ALL them flashing folks, just a few in locker room or shower – isn’t that enough?
How is this different from saying something like “we should not allow blacks or Hispanics into banks because statistics show that “At current levels of incarceration newborn black males in this country have a greater than a 1 in 4 chance of going to prison during their lifetimes, while Hispanic males have a 1 in 6 chance, and white males have a 1 in 23 chance of serving time.” Clearly, we don’t want innocent people exposed to bank potential bank robbers! (The statistic is from: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/llgsfp.htm) One difference is that clearly, a statement like that is blatant racism, and is not acceptable in today’s society, and even the Anons here haven’t been stupid enough to say something like that. If they had, Al Sharpton, the ACLU and other folks would have swarmed in on them. Another difference of note is that no one has provided any statistics to show that the transgendered, or even “aggressive gay advocates trying to push the envelope” have ever done such a thing – even once.
This is just pure speculation, a conflation designed to denigrate people like me by associating us with flashers, sexual predators, and pedophiles.
“You trying to deny they exist?” Can you show me some evidence that a transperson has ever flashed someone in a restroom or shower? In this country we are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty.
Of course, the biggest difference is the fact that transgender folks in Montgomery county aren’t protected by this kind of slander because the law that would have protected us from this kind of hateful speech is currently in legal limbo.
Peace,
Cynthia
Anon said:
“Oh, please. We'll all seen the gay pride parades. Shocking behavior is seen as a advocacy vehicle.”
Ah, finally, a clue to the underlying problem. Apparently Anon gets all his information about gay people from watching gay pride parades. Clearly, they have vehicles in the parades, so these must be “advocacy vehicles”!!!
Oh Puhh-leaaaase!!!
ROFLAO!
Thanks for the laugh Anon!
Cynthia!
Thanks for admitting that we don't make you up.
I received a small file of quotes from Theresa which I was able to scan in a minute. I have no time to troll through the blog and comments section. Absence of my comments proves nothing about absence of Theresa's comments. Again, what she said to me or others personally pales compared to the hate she has generated with her campaign, including the hate mail and death threats.
Where did I ever say I "prefer" to be called one thing? I have a legal name and a legal sex and for you to reject that places you outside the pale of civilized society. You wouldn't dare call a married woman by her earlier family name unless she asked you to do so. How dare you treat me so insultingly?
Theresa has already admitted the hoax was staged. Since you read this blog you know that, but you persist in lying.
I don't have the power to delete anything on this blog, as I've said before.
I have seen behavior by heterosexual white men at parties that put gay pride parades to shame. We've already pointed out, as most people know, that the vast majority of sex crimes and lewd behavior in this country is the work of stright people. Clean up your own house, Anon.
Anon: “You trying to deny they exist?”
Cynthia: “Can you show me some evidence that a transperson has ever flashed someone in a restroom or shower? In this country we are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty.”
--
And even if a flasher was found to be transgendered, that still would not establish a connection between gender identity and flashing behavior.
As you also said Cynthia: “This is just pure speculation, a conflation designed to denigrate people like me by associating us with flashers, sexual predators, and pedophiles.”
I would just add / clarify, that in that conflation, they are trying to sexualize gender identity and gender expression, for the mere sake of depicting it as sexual perversion.
And as has been said ad-infinitum, not only has no evidence of flashers who are transgendered been offered, but more importantly, no evidence of a connection between transgenderism and sexual perversion has been offered, and further, clearly it was never their intention to establish such a connection.
So far, innuendo TWICE REMOVED, is all that they've had to offer.
"to refer to the Dr by the Dr's birth name is neither insulting or disparaging"
---
Bad Questions to Ask a Transsexual: Old Version
Bad question #4: "What is, or was, your "real" name?"
This question’s a biggie. My real name is Calpernia Addams, dumbass. What are you really asking here?
When people ask me this question, what I hear, is that you either consider my current identity to be:
A Fabrication
A Lie
A Put-on
A Costume
Or a Joke…
…and you want to get at the "real" truth, behind who I "really" am.
Implication -- a man.
Or, um, they just want to have something to hold on to, to put me back in my place; "Who do you think you are Calpernia, pretending to be a woman? I know your real name, and you’ll always be ‘Frank Smith’ or, ‘Butch Jones' or, whatever to me."
Youu.. ;)
Well don’t ask this, it’s none of your business.
“Hey, but everybody knows that Marilyn Monroe’s old name was Norma Jean, c’mon Calpernia, we just wanna know.”
Well dumb***k, when you know Marilyn’s old name, it still doesn’t change her gender in your mind. She’s still a woman, whether you call her Norma Jean, or Marilyn Monroe.
When you talk to a transwoman about her old name, it’s overlaying a perception of gender onto her, using that name, that is very hurtful, and rude.
You know, most all of us in the public eye, eventually have our old names, photographs, and identities, outed by someone from our past. It happens, and I’ve been through a lot in my life, and I can handle it when it does.
All the same though, I just want you know, that when you ask this question, or when you use that old information, I’M HATING YOU, WITH A BURNING, WHITE HOT, DESTRUCTIVE HATRED, THAT’S WARMER THAN THE DEEPEST FIREY PITS OF THE LOWES LEVEL OF HELL.
“Hey, but so and so told me their name. I know the tranny who does my nails at the mall, and she told me right away that her name used to be Bob.”
Well, a lot of transwoman lack validation in their lives. Nobody is ever telling them “Good job!”, or “You look great!”, or much of anything. So they’re left feeling eager to please. They want to say anything, just to get a pat on the back. And this is a very sad situation that a lot of transwomen find themselves in.
So, maybe they told you their old name, just because they wanted your approval. I feel bad for these women in that situation, and I really feel bad that you’re such a low-life scum-bag that you would exploit their need, just to dig a little piece of dirty information out of ‘em.
Ah ah ah, that’s pretty bad of you…
---
"to refer to the Dr by the Dr's birth name is neither insulting or disparaging"
Post a Comment
<< Home