Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

New poll: Would you bang her?

tomhudson (43916) writes | more than 10 years ago

User Journal 258

Update: 2004-08-23: Her site, bio, better pix, etc... :-)
Also a better picture

Update: 2004-08-14: According to the accepted rules of internet debate, OnLawn lost his part of the debate against same-sex marriage earlier today. Details are in this journal entry, along with the necessary links.

Update: 2004-08-23: Her site, bio, better pix, etc... :-)
Also a better picture

Update: 2004-08-14: According to the accepted rules of internet debate, OnLawn lost his part of the debate against same-sex marriage earlier today. Details are in this journal entry, along with the necessary links.

===============================================

On Lawn refuses to accept that the world is changing, and that traditional concepts of sex, gender, and family, etc., have to be revised.

He's extended his bashing from gays and lesbians to transsexuals, calling them male crossdressers http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=117177&cid=9921527

So, I think we need a new poll:

Do you want to bang her? http://newyorkish.typepad.com/newyorkish/transsexual.jpg
Please keep in mind that 2 transsexuals (that I know of) will be reviewing your answers :-)

cancel ×

258 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Interesting Poll (1)

Trolling4Dollars (627073) | more than 10 years ago | (#9926289)

At first glance, yes I probably would. If I found that there was a "surprise" down below, I'd probably have to think about it for a bit since I am the kind of person to try anything once to see if it's any fun. From what I see in the picture, I am guessing that this is a tranny. But a damn fine looking one. :)

Re:Interesting Poll (1)

FuzzyBad-Mofo (184327) | more than 10 years ago | (#9926679)

Not to be crude or anything, but yeah. She's very pretty and feminine.

I just hope people like On Lawn can learn to accept diversity in people instead of feeling threatened.

Re:Interesting Poll (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9929018)

I just hope people like On Lawn can learn to accept diversity in people instead of feeling threatened.
There is no reason to believe On Lawn has any problem with diversity. Tom is simply out of arguments so he is taking refuge in the standard villification of all who disagree with him, part of his ongoing campaign of violence [slashdot.org] against whom he pretends to uphold. You, unfortunately, fell for it. By crying wolf every time his argument crumbles Tom steals credibility away from those who legitimately are being mistreated.

Re:Interesting Poll (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 10 years ago | (#9931263)

Ongoing campaign of violence? Bullshit.

On Lawn has made it quite clear that he is against extending equal rights to gays and lesbians, and that he feels that transsexuals are using the diagnosis of transsexualism to, in his words "exhonerate" their behaviour.

He also made it clear numerous times that single parents should get married, and that this has to be with someone of the opposite sex, even if the parent is gay or lesbian.

So stop posting as an AC - maybe then you might have a bit of cerdibility. Even On Lawn doesn't stoop that low. We disagree with each other; we mix it up; but neither of us is hiding, like you.

Re:Interesting Poll (1)

On Lawn (1073) | more than 10 years ago | (#9941182)

On Lawn has made it quite clear that he is against extending equal rights to gays and lesbians

Don't be disengenious. I read that thread and onlawn was arguing, you were slandering. And now you run away like madposter and start calling anyone who argues with you a bunch of bad names.

So stop posting as an AC

I'm a different AC than the parent post, and I have to say that there are some of us that simply do not see any merit in obtaining slashdot logins. How is that `hiding'? I could get a different login for each post I make if I wanted to. Logins for matubatorial jackasses who want their "friends" to come help them stroke themselves. Much like you are asking your friends to do with this JE.

Re:Interesting Poll (1)

On Lawn (1073) | more than 10 years ago | (#9941580)


s/I'm a different AC/What if I decided to post as a different AC/

s/Logins for matubatorial jackasses/Looking at you and madposter you would think that logins are only good for mastubatorial jackasses/

I was tempted to post that as an AC as you could probably tell, and I admit it. It would have been a grand statement as Tom seems to imply that being an AC is problematic to the arguments raised. But when the moral dillema was finally solved and I decided that the disengeniousness of not owning up to it was not worth it. However I submitted before I changed the a post from third to first person.

Re:Interesting Poll (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 10 years ago | (#9942064)

On Lawn has made it quite clear that he is against extending equal rights to gays and lesbians

Don't be disengenious. I read that thread and onlawn was arguing, you were slandering. And now you run away like madposter and start calling anyone who argues with you a bunch of bad names.

So stop posting as an AC

I'm a different AC than the parent post, and I have to say that there are some of us that simply do not see any merit in obtaining slashdot logins

Guess you forgot to check the "post anonymously" box, hmmmm. I had already suspected you were also posting as an AC to try to make it look like someone else was backing up your argument. Thanks for confirming it.

You've been busted (by yourself, of all people), so don't try to argue your way out of it.

Re:Interesting Poll (1)

On Lawn (1073) | more than 10 years ago | (#9942463)

Guess you forgot to check the "post anonymously" box, hmmmm.

Time on your post, August 11, @12:16PM

Time on the post above, August 11, @11:24AM

So you forgot to check the next post? Or do you simply want to ignore it for the sexier conspiracy theory.

I had already suspected you were also posting as an AC to try to make it look like someone else was backing up your argument. Thanks for confirming it.

I had already suspected that you think more highly of your paranoid dilusions than anything else. Thanks for confirming it.

The difference between me and you is that to you it is all about the accusation, not the argument. You spent more than 50 posts of accusation after accusation that didn't stand. And neither does this one. All the while hoping that if you can distract enough no one will see that you have nothing to say for yourself.

Heck, pretty boy pictures to dream of having sex with is more important to you than reason and facts. Breasts and a place to stick your brain are all that a woman means to you.

I remember that instead of backing up your posts with reason you told everyone to just bend over and accept your arguments and the government. And then you said that wasn't oppression ;)

Even homosexuals, which you claim to be championing like a knight in shining armor, you only wish for them to get married so that they can help you get rid of marriage. I'm not making this stuff up, thatis the sad part. For you accusations are just a diversion, but these are exactly what you were arguing for in the name of "equal rights".

I will put you at ease though, I have not been posting as AC, not on any forum. Though I have no problem with people that do not care for logins either. Again looking at your conversation with AC, it is not what is said, but what you can slander. And you put your login on it thinking that it turns that crap to gold.

Re:Interesting Poll (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 10 years ago | (#9942913)

Nope, your 2nd post was a really sad attempt to "explain" it. Doesn't wash. You are a troll. Bwhaaahahahaha

Now be a good litle troll and go play in traffic.

Re:Interesting Poll (1)

On Lawn (1073) | more than 10 years ago | (#9943607)

Nope, your 2nd post was a really sad attempt to "explain" it.

More accusations? Enough said.

Proof that On Lawn is trolling here (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 10 years ago | (#9944998)

On Lawn made this post was 1:45 PM http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=117401&cid=994 1182 [slashdot.org]
Re:Interesting Poll (Score:2)

by On Lawn (1073) on Wednesday August 11, @01:45PM (#9941182)

On Lawn has made it quite clear that he is against extending equal rights to gays and lesbians

Don't be disengenious. I read that thread and onlawn was arguing, you were slandering. And now you run away like madposter and start calling anyone who argues with you a bunch of bad names.

So stop posting as an AC

I'm a different AC than the parent post, and I have to say that there are some of us that simply do not see any merit in obtaining slashdot logins. How is that `hiding'? I could get a different login for each post I make if I wanted to. Logins for matubatorial jackasses who want their "friends" to come help them stroke themselves. Much like you are asking your friends to do with this JE. --

But he forgot to check off the "post anonymously" box...

Then he tried to explain it away with a second post at 2:24 PM, directly under it ... http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=117401&cid=994 1580 [slashdot.org]

Re:Interesting Poll (Score:2)

by On Lawn (1073) on Wednesday August 11, @02:24PM (#9941580)

s/I'm a different AC/What if I decided to post as a different AC/

s/Logins for matubatorial jackasses/Looking at you and madposter you would think that logins are only good for mastubatorial jackasses/

I was tempted to post that as an AC as you could probably tell, and I admit it. It would have been a grand statement as Tom seems to imply that being an AC is problematic to the arguments raised. But when the moral dillema was finally solved and I decided that the disengeniousness of not owning up to it was not worth it. However I submitted before I changed the a post from third to first person.

... almost 3/4 of an hour later, when he realized that he had not posted the first comment anonymously.

It's as lame as all his other arguments.

Is there ANY doubt now that On Lawn posts/trolls using anonymous accounts? Or do we need a new poll?

Re:Proof that On Lawn is trolling here (1)

On Lawn (1073) | more than 10 years ago | (#9945266)

almost 3/4 of an hour later, when he realized that he had not posted the first comment anonymously.

Non-sequitor. The time line has nothing to do with it. It could have been five minutes or two days and you would have had the same accusation.

It's as lame as all his other arguments.

Invectives do not an argument make, though that you use it as such indicates to me that realise you are wrong. And then you call it a proof? Over-reaching is a sure sign of desperation.

All in all you can convince yourself that you have proven something that is wrong, and that takes a special kind of ignorance and myopia. Even funnier is that you gloat in your fatuousness. Not because you believe it yourself but because you think others will believe you more if you do.

I have stated quite simply what happened, and I did it even before I had the need to defend myself from your accusations. Though it is funny, this is just as indicting a reaction as I could have ever hoped for if I had decided to post as AC.

Your life is so backwards. You try to decide your facts democratically (by poll) yet feel the government should oppress the majority with your self-convinced ideas.

Re:Proof that On Lawn is trolling here (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 10 years ago | (#9946277)

Still doesn't explain why you pretended to be someone else. You're busted.

Maybe you should get a mirror that says "Items in this mirror are stupider than they seem", to remind you every time you shave, fat boy!

Re:Proof that On Lawn is trolling here (1)

On Lawn (1073) | more than 10 years ago | (#9949001)

Still doesn't explain why you pretended to be someone else. You're busted.

You're an idiot. How can a post with my name on it be pretending to be someone else? Your lack of logic is truely indicting.

Re:Proof that On Lawn is trolling here (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 10 years ago | (#9949320)

Referring to yourself in the third person several times was a dead giveaway that you forgot to post anonymously.

Stupid OnLawn Trolls Again! [slashdot.org] Read it and weep - nobody else is buying your BS.

Re:Proof that On Lawn is trolling here (1)

On Lawn (1073) | more than 10 years ago | (#9950110)

Referring to yourself in the third person several times was a dead giveaway that you forgot to post anonymously.

Yes, put those blinder on. Everyone come get a pair of Tom's blinders! There is only one way to take that, Tom's blinders prove it! Everyone else is wearing them, you should too.

Seriously, that you are trying to make so much of this is (as pointed out, and pointed out again, and pointed out over and over ad naseum) is truely an indictment of how much you are running away from the JE's where things didn't go as planned for you.

New poll: Do poll's establish truth? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9945280)

Is there ANY doubt now that On Lawn posts/trolls using anonymous accounts?
Considerable since you have not shown an example of where he posted anonymously. (That's called "evidence," lawyer-boy.) The one example you show is of an irony he pointed out to you of your fear of the AC, and it was not posted as an AC. Further, you fail to show how such a tactic would make his argument more correct. (That's "motive," lawyer-boy.)

Go ahead. Provide one link to one article posted by On Lawn with an AC byline. Be careful, though, not to choose one of my posts [slashdot.org] or I will expose your fraud [slashdot.org] .

Or do we need a new poll?
Why don't you just have a poll on whether a poll [fallacyfiles.org] establishes what's true? You're quite simply a moron, and an unprincipled one at that [slashdot.org] . Fear the AC!

Re:New poll: Do poll's establish truth? (1)

On Lawn (1073) | more than 10 years ago | (#9945381)

it was not posted as an AC.

That is funny, and an excellent point.

Further, you fail to show how such a tactic would make his argument more correct.

This is kind of a chicken and egg problem. Does he hate the AC because there is no login to speak in third person about even when replying to a post? "On Lawn thinks" or "On Lawn says. Who is he talking to? I'm right here, no reason to avoid me unless you are running scared.

And he has not started a sentance with "On Lawn" that has proven to be true. It is more like a labeling of a strawman, "look here folks this strawman is On Lawn..." As if the strawman was soo bad that no one would recognize it any other way.

What is funny is that he thinks no one notices this. That he somehow wins if he can find something to insult, even if he has to make it up from thin air.

Why don't you just have a poll on whether a poll establishes what's true?

Even in this poll, he couldn't find a majority who would "bang" her. Which is probably why he's abandoned it entirely.

Re:On Lawn STILL lies (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 10 years ago | (#9946292)

Even in this poll, he couldn't find a majority who would "bang" her. Which is probably why he's abandoned it entirely.
The poll is still quite active (I'm surprised at how much), even subtracting your crqap floods.

And the majority opinion seems to be that, unlike you, they would respect post-op transsexuals. Most slashdotters don't seem to be against gays, lesbians, transsexuals, etc.

Re:On Lawn STILL lies (1)

On Lawn (1073) | more than 10 years ago | (#9948295)

even subtracting your crqap floods.

Really? Where did I crap-flood? I don't even think you know what that mans. I think you just grep slashdot for invectives and randomly insert them in your post hoping something will stick.

And the majority opinion seems to be that, unlike you, they would respect post-op transsexuals.

You have me wrong (again and intentionally so), I respect them too. Never said differently. But that is rather lowest-common denominator isn't it? Your poll was trying to find out if people shared your belief that if you are attracted to something, it must be a woman. So far you are in a small minority.

Most slashdotters don't seem to be against gays, lesbians, transsexuals, etc.

I'm one of them. That I don't respect the subset of gays and lesbians that inflict their persecution complex on the world is an entirely different aspect than respecting them as individuals.

Re:On Lawn STILL lies (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 10 years ago | (#9948977)

More backpedalling and lies by the OnLawn troll himself [slashdot.org]

Most slashdotters don't seem to be against gays, lesbians, transsexuals, etc.
I'm one of them. That I don't respect the subset of gays and lesbians that inflict their persecution complex on the world is an entirely different aspect than respecting them as individuals.
This from the same guy who says that homosexuality is something that can be cured http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=117401&cid=994 3726 [slashdot.org]
by On Lawn (1073) on Wednesday August 11, @07:25PM (#9943726)

Homosexuality is more than 50% curable though. Some studies suggest that homosexuality is more than 70% curable.
Though I should put that in another way, more than 50% (and even as high as 70%) of people who wish to leave the lifestyle are successful [narth.com] with heterosexual relationships. That is a better rate than hypochondriacs.
Doesn't sound too respectful to say that they need to be cured, now does it? IOW, you think they are sick. So, Mr. OnLawn Troll [slashdot.org] , what if I say you're a sick puppy who needs to be cured? Are you going to take that as compliment?

Re:On Lawn STILL lies (1)

On Lawn (1073) | more than 10 years ago | (#9949985)

This from the same guy who says that homosexuality is something that can be cured

Though I should put that in another way, more than 50% (and even as high as 70%) of people who wish to leave the lifestyle are successful [narth.com] with heterosexual relationships. That is a better rate than hypochondriacs.


And don't forget the link [narth.com] I provided. I wouldn't want you to be accused of something as intellectually dishonest as incompletely quoting me ;)

Doesn't sound too respectful to say that they need to be cured

You are over-reaching again (really hasn't anyone ever taught you how to support an argument?). I never said they need to be cured, and neither does the link. I say they have a choice, and what is dis-respectful about that?

All in all a nice try, but I still wonder who in the past you've argued with that you believe these accusations and outright lies are going to help you out at all.

Re:New poll: Do poll's establish truth? (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 10 years ago | (#9946584)

Stupid troll [slashdot.org] - still talking to yourself? What next, the sound of one hand clapping?
And he has not started a sentance with "On Lawn" that has proven to be true
On Lawn is a troll who uses anonymous accounts to make it look like someone actually agrees with him [slashdot.org] (hint - click on the link ... :-)

Re:New poll: Do poll's establish truth? (1)

On Lawn (1073) | more than 10 years ago | (#9948929)

No exception.

Re:Interesting Poll (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9944903)

I'm a different AC than the parent post...
I had already suspected you were also posting as an AC...

You've been busted (by yourself, of all people),

Actually, he said he was not me (which is true), so he clearly did not "bust" himself. I have already advised you against arguing points nobody has made [slashdot.org] , and fantasizing nefarious conspiracies [slashdot.org] when you should be thinking of an argument.

On Lawn is a great debater. He collects information and writes persuasively about what he believes. He also defends his beliefs with great vigor and a good many words. I, on the other hand, am simply analytic. I tend to point out when one's argument is lacking [slashdot.org] , or when one abuses science [slashdot.org] . Typically, I don't bother proposing a counter to the argument being made until the poster corrects his argument. On Lawn, on the other hand, is content to give the author the benefit of the doubt and post a counter argument [slashdot.org] to even the most badly flawed rationale. In this way, On Lawn is more charitable than I. I do, on occasion, editorialize under extreme circumstances [slashdot.org] , but in a much more abrupt style than On Lawn. Perhaps if you were not so delusional you'd have noticed the differences.

Re:Interesting Poll (1)

On Lawn (1073) | more than 10 years ago | (#9945217)

Tom's logic seems to be based on "any port in a storm" or rather "any accusation to deflect from a lack of brainpower in an argument". He could be trying to convince us that 'he' is a she, and that he really isn't lusting after a guy who's been refited with parts like a realdoll.com. (By his logic, anything he's attracted to must be a female.) Well instead of trying to make a point he leaps off on any tangent he can that *isn't* on that topic. We call this "running scared".

Thanks for the good word. I see you are up to your usual (if it is the same you), threading logical errors on the opponent's part with a Peterbuilt Tractor Trailer. Like Rocky Balboa though, he gets hit over and over again and thinks, "But if I swing at all then they'll think I'm winning". You are filetting him infront of his friends, and if he can pretend it doesn't hurt, he wins in his mind.

Then again, any port in a storm ;) He basically ignores me anyway. I haven't seen him counter any argument I've made until he though I made a mistake here. And even then it has nothing to do with the subject.

Re:Interesting Poll (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 10 years ago | (#9942865)

He also made it clear numerous times that single parents should get married, and that this has to be with someone of the opposite sex, even if the parent is gay or lesbian.

I've made this clear also- if you love the kid you will provide in-home parents of both genders. If your point is to simply say to the world "I'm Gay/Single/an asshat/whatever and I can raise a kid if I want to" regardless of how screwed up the kid will be- well, I guess that's your business, but don't claim be doing it for the kid's sake when you're really just doing it for your own ego.

Re:Interesting Poll (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 10 years ago | (#9943246)

Kids are pretty resilient, provided they get love.

There are plenty of screwed-up kids from families that "stayed together for the sake of the kids", so the kids saw that as the model, as opposed to relatonships based on love and caring.

I don't think single parents do it for their ego - I think that, in many cases, they put off having much in the way of a relationship because the child comes first, and there just isn't TIME, what with work child-rearing, etc.

Re:Interesting Poll (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 10 years ago | (#9943335)

Kids are pretty resilient, provided they get love.

Not according to the latest studies- that show that men and women provide different things to parenting.

There are plenty of screwed-up kids from families that "stayed together for the sake of the kids", so the kids saw that as the model, as opposed to relatonships based on love and caring.

Love and caring SHOULD be secondary to commitment- only commitment can last.

I don't think single parents do it for their ego - I think that, in many cases, they put off having much in the way of a relationship because the child comes first, and there just isn't TIME, what with work child-rearing, etc.

Aside from death, there should be no reason to be a single parent. Having sex to begin with is an 18-year commitment to the other person, and to the child that you will share. Losing sight of that responsibility is the first problem- the rest all stem from not having the commitment to carry through with the logical conclusion of your actions.

And with death- well, grief support groups are wonderfull places to find people in the same situation.

That's why I say divorce should be outlawed- people need to live up to their responsibilities instead of being selfish and becoming single parents to begin with.

Re:Interesting Poll (1)

the_mad_poster (640772) | more than 10 years ago | (#9947168)

That's why I say divorce should be outlawed- people need to live up to their responsibilities instead of being selfish and becoming single parents to begin with.

What utter and absolute crap...

Divorce should be outlawed ... to force people... to willingly.... live up to responsibilities.

The problem with being socially conservative is that, after a while, you're going to be hoist by your own petard telling other people how to live their lives. You cannot FORCE people to be responsible. Some people are flat out irresponsible, they always will be, and I've been witness to this immutable fact of life for the last six years day in and day out. If two irresponsible people who grow to hate each other are forced to remain together against there will, the child WILL grow up in a tense atmosphere of hatred, potentially violence, almost certianly forced to play favorites between the two parents. The unmitigated damage children in those situations suffer from such an abymsmally stupid idea is far beyond anything you could likely understand.

If people would stop turning to rules and regulations and realize the human beings can only be made to take responsibility for themselves and not forced to do it by someone else, we'd all be much better off, which is why I absolutely despise conservative social agendas like the one that is the subject of this JE. People are so busy sticking their noses in everyone elses business and trying to force them to conform to their own arbitrary way of thinking that they can't intelligently discern what really is and isn't harmful anymore.

Re:Interesting Poll (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 10 years ago | (#9948388)

Divorce should be outlawed ... to force people... to willingly.... live up to responsibilities.

Where in my original are the words "to willingly"? It's obvious to me we've got a lot of spoiled brats in society- and I ain't talking about the children. They ain't going to take responsibility for themselves- so they need to be forced to do it by any means neccessary- up to and including brainwashing.

Re:Interesting Poll (1)

the_mad_poster (640772) | more than 10 years ago | (#9949358)

You're original words don't say it - it wasn't a quote. It was a paraphrase of the idea. You cannot FORCE someone to be responsible. For somebody who is irresponsible to become responsible, they must choose to do that. You can become belligerent and coerce them into performing specific steps that a responsible might take, but that's not responsibility, that's just them falling "into line" because they fear consequences.

Therefore, you cannot force people to be responsible by abolishing divorce. The irresponsible people will

up to and including brainwashing

Oh, really? Fine. Then we should just brainwash everyone into accepting homosexuality and abolishing the entire concept of marriage, right? Then the problem goes away!

Re:Interesting Poll (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 10 years ago | (#9949648)

It was a paraphrase of the idea.

Then it was a bad paraphrase- because willingness doesn't enter into the picture.

You can become belligerent and coerce them into performing specific steps that a responsible might take, but that's not responsibility, that's just them falling "into line" because they fear consequences.

Better than there being NO CONSEQUENCES for behavior.

Oh, really? Fine. Then we should just brainwash everyone into accepting homosexuality and abolishing the entire concept of marriage, right? Then the problem goes away!

What did you think all of that classroom time and TV shows like Queer Eye were about? Simply a new way to make money? That's EXACTLY what is currently going on- brainwashing people to be more irresponsible with their choices.

Re:Interesting Poll (1)

the_mad_poster (640772) | more than 10 years ago | (#9949983)

Then it was a bad paraphrase- because willingness doesn't enter into the picture.

I don't think this is quite getting through... FORCING someone to be RESPONSIBLE is not possible. The most you can do is FORCE them to ACT as if they were responsible. Just because you make them step through routine, however, does not make them responsible anymore than giving me exact, step-by-step instructions on performing an operation makes me a doctor.

Better than there being NO CONSEQUENCES for behavior.

Excepting, of course, that the consequences for making children live in a tense household where the parents loathe one another almost certainly outwiegh the consequences of making children live in a single parent home, or share time in each household.

That's EXACTLY what is currently going on- brainwashing people to be more irresponsible with their choices.

So, acceptance of the validity of your position requires me to believe in a conspiracy theory?

Re:Interesting Poll (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 10 years ago | (#9950117)

I don't think this is quite getting through... FORCING someone to be RESPONSIBLE is not possible. The most you can do is FORCE them to ACT as if they were responsible. Just because you make them step through routine, however, does not make them responsible anymore than giving me exact, step-by-step instructions on performing an operation makes me a doctor.

So says your theory- I say that the same ends can be achieved either way. And have you read a medical journal lately? Most operations are published as step-by-step instructions allowing other doctors to duplicate the work. Heck- that's the basic model for human learning all over the planet.

Excepting, of course, that the consequences for making children live in a tense household where the parents loathe one another almost certainly outwiegh the consequences of making children live in a single parent home, or share time in each household.

That's an extraordinary claim- do you have some extraoridinary proof to back it up?

So, acceptance of the validity of your position requires me to believe in a conspiracy theory

No, it requires you to do your own research into your own position and come up with facts to show why teaching children that homosexuality is normal isn't brainwashing society into believing that homosexuality is normal. The way to dispell a conspiracy theory is to attack the facts that build up that conspiracy theory. Basic debate class, didn't you take this in high school?

Two words ... (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 10 years ago | (#9948451)

Thank you :-)

OnLawn is a troll [slashdot.org]

Re:Interesting Poll (1)

On Lawn (1073) | more than 10 years ago | (#9943626)

Kids are pretty resilient, provided they get love.

Yet another class of people to grind under the wheels of what you claim to be "progress".

Re:Interesting Poll (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 10 years ago | (#9945123)

Kids are pretty resilient, provided they get love.

Yet another class of people to grind under the wheels of what you claim to be "progress".

Guess we all know who got vinegar instead of breast milk ...

... so much for the power of love. It's funny (like in strange, not in ha-ha): I'm an atheist, and yet it seems I have more faith in people than On Lawn does. Guess that's why I don't need God. I must be one of those "damn Commies" you hear about. Oops, I'm Canadian - same diff, I guess :-)

Re:Interesting Poll (1)

On Lawn (1073) | more than 10 years ago | (#9945293)

Guess we all know who got vinegar instead of breast milk

Tom, lusting after pretty boys and treating children like second class citizens is bad enough. Just what do you hope to accomplish acting like a third-grader?

so much for the power of love.

So much for Love? Just what have you espoused that was even close to "love"?

The hypocrisy of running to the moral highground of love, while simultaneously expecting children to "be resiliant" so you can be selfish is not lost on me. It's bad enough to have to argue with such amoral person without having to hear a bunch of pompous moral posturing from them.

I'm an atheist, and yet it seems I have more faith in people than On Lawn does.

Faith is not purchasing convenience on their tears. Faith in people means you invest in them, and give them opportunities and nurturing. To you faith in people means that you can use and abuse them, and they will learn to deal.

I must be one of those "damn Commies"

Just a class A "everyone around me is an opportunity to exploit" jerk. If that is communism to you, then so be it :)

Re:Interesting Poll (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 10 years ago | (#9946410)

On Lawn the troll http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=117401&cid=994 4530 [slashdot.org] again just shows he's dumber than shit.
Tom, lusting after pretty boys and treating children like second class citizens is bad enough. Just what do you hope to accomplish acting like a third-grader?
Who is "lusting after pretty boys" or "treating children like second class citizens"? You seem to have me confused with your local priest.

Or are you just projecting your deepest urgings on others, again?

Nowhere prior to you bringing it up has ANYONE made any references to such behaviour. Unlike you, I don't assume that gays and/or lesbians engage in such behaviours.

So much for Love? Just what have you espoused that was even close to "love"?
You could try "not trying to force everyone into 1 single mold". Or "repecting their rights to lead their lives as they see fit".

Concrete example: again, unlike you, I would not recommend forcing people into relationships that they don't want to be in (like telling single parents to "get married", as if that will solve all their problems. For a lot of them, the marriage WAS the problem), and they're doing okay on their own. And so are their kids.

But On Lawn the Troll http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=117401&cid=994 4530 [slashdot.org] doesn't believe that kids can be raised in such an environment because you don't have any faith in people who don't follow your views. They're amoral, god-haters, etc., etc...

The hypocrisy of running to the moral highground of love, while simultaneously expecting children to "be resiliant" so you can be selfish is not lost on me. It's bad enough to have to argue with such amoral person without having to hear a bunch of pompous moral posturing from them.
Anyone who disagrees with you is "amoral AND pompous". Well, better that than be a narrow-minded troll like you http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=117401&cid=994 4530 [slashdot.org]
Just a class A "everyone around me is an opportunity to exploit" jerk. If that is communism to you, then so be it.
Actually, that's a pretty good description of unfettered capitalism / social darwinism, not communism. And certainly not socialism (even conservative Canadians are socialists compared to some of the right-wing stuff you spout). Pretty lame troll overall http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=117401&cid=994 4530 [slashdot.org]

Re:Interesting Poll (1)

On Lawn (1073) | more than 10 years ago | (#9948489)

You seem to have me confused with your local priest.

So then I'm just supposed to ignore that your journal entry about how you lust after a guy with boobs. I'm supposed to ignore that you posted that parents should do what they want because children are resilient? If that was a priest behaving that way I'd say the same thing. But priests have nothing to do with your behaviour.

Or are you just projecting your deepest urgings on others, again?

Again, you divert. Who is as ignorant as you that this kind of thing works on them?

You could try "not trying to force everyone into 1 single mold".

I'm not the one endorsing people to change plumbing so they can fit in a mold.

unlike you, I would not recommend forcing people into relationships that they don't want to be in

Strawman.

like telling single parents to "get married"

Again a strawman. Ecouraging people to be married is not a command.

They're amoral, god-haters, etc., etc...

When someone tells me that they have a personal vendetta against religion (as you have) and that you consider that people should just bend over and take it when you decree something, that tells me *you* are an amoral god-hater. That your actions tell me you are and you don't own up to them furthers that conclusion.

better that than be a narrow-minded troll like you

And again, you use the word "troll" when you mean "how dare you disagree with me". And you keep jumping between third and second person.

Actually, that's a pretty good description of unfettered capitalism / social darwinism, not communism.

So be it.

Also, you can use 'a' tags for links and make your post be formatted much better.

And what is the purpose of those links in the first place? I'm not the one who wrote it (though I agree with what they say). As best I can tell you blindly use those links as soap-box to continue thrusting unsubstantiated labels at me.

Re:Interesting Poll (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9944530)

Ongoing campaign of violence? Bullshit.
I do not make the claim lightly. I posted my links. Further, your response qualifies as a "non-denial denial."
[blithering list of unsubstantiated accusations deleted]
Even On Lawn doesn't stoop that low.
Agreed. On Lawn doesn't stoop to blithering, unsubstantiated lists of accusations.
So stop posting as an AC - maybe then you might have a bit of cerdibility.
Credibility comes from providing evidence, not from changing my name.
neither of us is hiding, like you.
I simply do not have a slashdot account or I would use it. You would do well to respond to argument rather than making up motives for those you disagree with.

Re:Interesting Poll (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 10 years ago | (#9926691)

She's a 27-year-old pre-op transsexual, who did a tv show to get the $$$ to finish the "body mods".

Now the question is, how would we make this into a slashdot poll?

Options like:

  1. ...must ... resist ... AGGGGH!
  2. sound of one hand "clapping"
  3. is it real or is it Photoshop?
  4. WTF - that's my wife!
  5. imagine a boewulf cluster of those :-)
  6. in Soviet Russia, tranny does you!
  7. that's CowboyNeal, you insensitive clod!

Re:Interesting Poll (1)

Ethelred Unraed (32954) | more than 10 years ago | (#9927186)

WTF - that's my wife!

Will you STOP ruining my keyboards!

As for my answer: I probably would not, no -- even though I'm quite happy to support someone's right to have their op and live as they please, just as I support gay rights, that does not mean I have to want to sleep with them. ;-)

Cheers,

Ethelred

Nope (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 10 years ago | (#9929982)

Too dangerous. I prefer my female swimsuit models without the lump between the legs- and given recent health problems in the homosexual community, it's far better to be celebate than to even attempt it, as celebacy is the only true prevention for AIDS.

Re:Nope (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 10 years ago | (#9931568)

... does that mean you'd reconsider in the case of post-ops who are also virgins?

(I know, I ask all the tough questions ... :-)

Here's something to consider - you've probably met at least a few transsexuals without even knowing (current estimates are now about 1/5000, as opposed to earlier estimates of 1/35000; and there is a decided clustering effect in the IT world, so there are probably well over 100 slashdotters who are eitehr pre- or post-op).

Now before you say "impossible - I would know", ask yourself, how would you know?

Re:Nope (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 10 years ago | (#9931724)

In my younger days- yes. Now- I need more. I need the fertility in a mate, I need the complementary viewpoint of the female mind, I need more than just sex. None of which a tranny can give me. NONE of the MTF trannies I've met (and I agree with your estimates, including the theory of clustering, as IT seems to attract all sorts of people with emotional problems (including myself- I've got Asperger's Syndrome)) have that extra ability to multitask, that special something that means mother- or for that matter, the overies and milk-producing glands in the breasts. And as for being able to tell, it's easy- look at the hands, particularily the length of the index and ring fingers. Most people never notice- but I do because I'm autistic to begin with and have to look someplace OTHER than the face (anyplace- perscription sunglasses were the best business decision I ever made- if you can't see my eyes you can't tell that I'm looking at the far wall over your left shoulder instead of at your face while talking to you).

Re:Nope (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 10 years ago | (#9932230)

Interesting that you said "look at the hands" - the 2D-4D ratio. Many m2f transsexuals have the same ratio as genetic women.

So I guess you wouldn't always be able to tell :-)

As for the complementary viewpoint of the female mind, primary m2f transsexuals )as opposed to autogynephiles) have that as well.

Re:Nope (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 10 years ago | (#9934640)

Really? They have index fingers MUCH longer than the ring finger?

Also, none of my tranny friends seem to have the same mind as my wife- which seems to work entirely differently from any man I've ever met. Loads less logical, hops subjects like a flea on a hot tin roof, way more emotional.

Re:Nope (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 10 years ago | (#9936077)

Index fingers longer than ring fingers - type 1 (primary) transsexualism caused by excess estrogen exposure in the womb during the first trimester.

As opposed to the male pattern - ring fingers longer than index fingers.

Maybe your tranny friends (the ones with the same finger pattern as men) are what are known as autogynephiles. Or maybe not. In any case, their brains wouldn't be expected to function like a womans because the site in the brain that controls gender identification wasn't exposed to the high doses of estrogen during the first trimester, as indicated by the 2D4D ratio.

Who knows? Who cares? Live and let live ...

Mind you, I read an article in the paper recently about how women with longish ring fingers are more likely to put out (also more likely to drink to the point of getting drunk - do you think there's a connection? D'uh!) Now I'm sure that there would be a lot of volunteers to help replicate THAT university research.

Re:Nope (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 10 years ago | (#9942490)

I'm not s familiar with the genetic freaks as I am with the mental ones. Probably because I'm a bit of a mental freak myself.

Re:Nope (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 10 years ago | (#9943150)

We're all freaks in one way or another :-) That's what helps make us human, I guess.

Re:Nope (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9944615)

Index fingers longer than ring fingers - type 1 (primary) transsexualism caused by excess estrogen exposure in the womb during the first trimester.
Tom, didn't post a link to the study this time? Learned your lesson about dabbling in things you don't understand from last [slashdot.org] time?

More On Lawn BS (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 10 years ago | (#9946254)

Why post links when you don't read them? You obviously didn't read (or failed to understand) the Scientific American article that I linked to (or didn't get beyond the first page).

The reference I had made in that post, to rats behaviour being modified when exposed to cross-sexual hormones in the womb or just after birth was in the article:

Williams also found that hormonal manipulation during the critical period could alter these behaviors. Depriving newborn males of sex hormones by castrating them or administering hormones to newborn females resulted in a complete reversal of sex-typed behaviors in the adult animals. Treated males behaved like females and treated females, like males.
If you had bothered to do any further research (like most posters here are able to do), you would have come across the source article, which described the procedures used, and how the female rats exhibited mounting behaviours, and the male rats lordosis (arching of the spine the same as a female desiring to be mounted).

Guess you don't understand how to do a search.

As for the 2d4d studies, the last published ones I am aware of were done in Ontario, Canada (within the last year), but the connection between 2d4d finger ratios and sexual identity has been known and validated by more than a century of research.

So learn how to do a bit of research or at least RTFA in its entirety before posting criticisms (especially before doing so as an AC troll) http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=117401&cid=994 4530 [slashdot.org]

The world is changing. (1)

Organized Konfusion (700770) | more than 10 years ago | (#9931765)

Big Brother UK was won by Nadia [channel4.com] , she used to be a man. The public knew this from the start.

She won the show with a record breaking 76% of the final vote!

The answer depends... (1)

Zirnike (640152) | more than 10 years ago | (#9933141)

on the answer to the question "pre or post operation". I don't have many firm requirements on a prosepective sexual partner, but I'm afraid the correct answer to 'innie or outie?' is one of those.

That's Miriam. (1)

satans_advocate (787715) | more than 10 years ago | (#9936856)

Given that there was a whole british TV series about Miriam (called strangely enough, there is something about Miriam), I already know that she is a he.

Miriam's adam's apple is almost invisible, I don't know if that was surgery or what, but most transsexuals are given away by the adam's apple.

Re:That's Miriam. (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 10 years ago | (#9938449)

(called strangely enough, there is something about Miriam)
It was called that as a play on the title of the movi "There's Something About Mary" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0129387/ [imdb.com]

Miriam's adam's apple is almost invisible, I don't know if that was surgery or what, but most transsexuals are given away by the adam's apple.
All you had to do is type: http://www.google.com/search?q=transsexual+adams+a pple [google.com] and read the first hit.

On a side note, it seems that google is returning relevant results on the first hit almost all the time nowadays. Maybe it's the way I word my queries ... guess that's why I leave one tab open - its quicker than hunting through a bunch of bookmarks :-)

Re:That's Miriam. (1)

satans_advocate (787715) | more than 10 years ago | (#9938575)

All you had to do is type: http://www.google.com/search?q=transsexual+adams+a pple and read the first hit.

Er.. the first hit tells me that transexuals can get a trachea shave, but not whether or not Miriam had it done.

So, not sure what your point is exactly.

Re:That's Miriam. (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 10 years ago | (#9940233)

You wrote:
but most transsexuals are given away by the adam's apple.
That's the part I was responding to ...

Re:That's Miriam. (1)

satans_advocate (787715) | more than 10 years ago | (#9943942)

Oh, right.

Isn't that question misleading? (1)

sillypixie (696077) | more than 10 years ago | (#9939246)

Personally, I don't think the question should be "Would you Bang Her". I don't believe that the point of this is somehow trapping innocent heterosexual males into sleeping with another man, which is how the question comes across to me.

I have to imagine that this woman has the same plans as all of us - she wants to find relationships that satisfy her, and she wants to be able to walk down the street and be treated as an attractive member of the species.

She wants second looks, from everybody. She wants to play a game of pool and have all the guys at all the other tables secretly checking her out. But she probably doesn't really want to pull one over on her sexual partner.

Of course, I have no external validation for this opinion. It just seems like common sense. I could be dead wrong...

Pixie

Re:Isn't that question misleading? (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 10 years ago | (#9940380)

I don't believe that the point of this is somehow trapping innocent heterosexual males into sleeping with another man, which is how the question comes across to me.
If you read my preamble to the question, I am trying to point out that attitudes have changed regarding gays, lesbian, and transsexuals :-)
the world is changing, and that traditional concepts of sex, gender, and family, etc., have to be revised.
I hope that covers it, and it seems that most people have taken it that way.

The real question that my question implies is this: Would you allow her to be considered a woman after surgery, or would you still think of her as a "man in a dress"?

This has all sorts of implications: which toilet to use in the workplace and in restaurants, for example. In the case of arrest, who should do any frisking.

And then there's the biggie - marriage.

Your answer:

I have to imagine that this woman has the same plans as all of us ...
... seems to be in agreement (though I don't want to be accused of putting words in your mouth).

Re:Isn't that question misleading? (1)

sillypixie (696077) | more than 10 years ago | (#9940850)

Absolutely, I agree with everything you've said - it's just that by asking if you would screw her, you are really posing a prerequisite question, which is "would you have sex with a man".

And I can see that getting in the way for some people. Which is too bad. You are right though - this is a well-educated group of people, so perhaps I'm not giving them enough credit...

I think she's gorgeous, btw.

Pixie

Re:Isn't that question misleading? (1)

HBI (604924) | more than 10 years ago | (#9943162)

You're right of course. I find the asking of 'would you have sex with this woman' to be kind of crass as well, in addition to your point.

I don't concede appearance or desire defining gender role, unfortunately. I have a very good friend from high school who is a transvestite and I will not concede that 'he' has become a 'she'. Norm was a perfectly functional male until he decided it was time to change his appearance. Perfecly functional to the point where he would fondle and fornicate with the local girls when we were in high school.

I find it quite impossible to pretend that he is a woman now. He is XY. Sadly, if the person in the picture is also genetically male i'm similarly inclined. I acknowledge the point of certain loosening up gender stereotypes was to some degree laudable and made sense. This whole 'defining your own gender' thing has taken things way beyond the logical, into the realm of the absurd.

I feel sorry for those trapped inside the wrong gender's body. I am sorry I have diabetes too. My problem can't be fixed, neither can theirs, really. I can eat a limited diet and shoot up insulin - they can use attire, cosmetics and surgery. I'm still a diabetic afterwards - they're still their original gender too.

Re:Isn't that question misleading? (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 10 years ago | (#9943368)

... ummm ... there's a difference between a transvestite and a transsexual. Transvestites almost never identify as the opposite of their genetic sex; most are heterosexual, marry, have kids, etc.

Transsexuals, on the other hand, identify as the opposite sex. So, whereas your transvestite friend does not feel trapped in the wrong body, a transsexual does.

Oh, BTW, type 1 diabetes has proven to be curable. Testng of transplanting micro-encapsulated insulin-producing cells has been successful, sometimes partially, sometimes completely. It's still going to take a few years to a decade to come to market, however.

Same with transsexuality - the transsexual no longer feels trapped in the wrong body after treatment.

But that's all irrelevant to what I really want to know, which is whether society (as exemplified by the slashdot crowd) has moved forward enough to accept gays, lesbians, and transsexuals as part of the norm - in other words, can they marry, have sex, raise kids, etc., without the rest of us getting bent out of shape over it.

Re:Isn't that question misleading? (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 10 years ago | (#9943583)

But that's all irrelevant to what I really want to know, which is whether society (as exemplified by the slashdot crowd) has moved forward enough to accept gays, lesbians, and transsexuals as part of the norm - in other words, can they marry, have sex, raise kids, etc., without the rest of us getting bent out of shape over it.

No- and the reason is pure statistics. Gays, lesbians, and transsexuals are easily at least 2 sigma off the bell curve that defines "normal", and therefore will never be a part of the norm. Thus *somebody* will always get bent out of shape over them attempting to pretend to have normal lives when they quite obviously don't. Worse yet though is that they've got the sexuality textbook writers thinking this is so normal that from any given sixth grade sex ed course in the United States you'd think that fully 50% of the population was homosexual- when it's really much closer to 2%-10% depending on whose numbers you use.

Re:Isn't that question misleading? (1)

On Lawn (1073) | more than 10 years ago | (#9943726)

Homosexuality is more than 50% curable though. Some studies suggest that homosexuality is more than 70% curable.

Though I should put that in another way, more than 50% (and even as high as 70%) of people who wish to leave the lifestyle are successful [narth.com] with heterosexual relationships. That is a better rate than hypochondriacs.

And here [narth.com] is an analysis of the finger-length study that Tom points to.

Also, the 10% homosexuality claim is also bad science. Probably less than a tenth of a percent even. That is no reason to be mean to them, mind you. But the 10% study shows just how far the homosexual community will stretch science [jefflindsay.com] sometimes.

Re:Isn't that question misleading? (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 10 years ago | (#9943846)

It doesn't matter- 10% or 2% or .1%- they're all so far outside of the norm that to wish to be thought of *as the norm* is just that- wishful thinking that will never be fullfilled.

Re:Isn't that question misleading? (1)

On Lawn (1073) | more than 10 years ago | (#9944140)


10% might be sizable enough to consider somewhat normal. A power of ten below that is outside that, but most likely it is two-three powers of ten smaller than that.

And they can be as much a minority as they want. I am tired of hearing people cry out for the government to do something for them because they have a persecution complex. If they were being persecuted that would be one thing. If they are just asking for Big Brother to take care of them, that is pathetic.

Re:Isn't that question misleading? (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 10 years ago | (#9946197)

10% might be sizable enough to consider somewhat normal. A power of ten below that is outside that, but most likely it is two-three powers of ten smaller than that.
The correct term is order of magnitude, not "power of ten below" (D'uh!). To say that anything is "three powers of ten smaller" is an attempt by a poser to look like he knows what he's talking about ...

On the other hand, to say that the gay and lesbian population is 3 orders of magnitude smaller than 10% (ie 1 in 1000) is delusional or, in On Lawn's case, wishful thinking.

And they can be as much a minority as they want. I am tired of hearing people cry out for the government to do something for them because they have a persecution complex. If they were being persecuted that would be one thing. If they are just asking for Big Brother to take care of them, that is pathetic.
They are not doing any such thing. Quite the opposite - they want the government to stop interfering in their lives, and remove the artificial restrictions put there by the law.

But since you seem to be in favour of everyone being treated equally, lets tax all church revenue (sales tax, entertainment tax, etc.) As you say, asking for special treatment from Big Brother is pathetic, and NOT taxing church revenues at the tithe box is an indirect subsidy by the rest of society on your Sunday entertainment.

Re:Isn't that question misleading? (1)

On Lawn (1073) | more than 10 years ago | (#9948245)

The correct term is order of magnitude, not "power of ten below"

Of all the inane ways to feign intellectual superiority, you have to take a scientific buzzword you read on a post on slashdot somewhere and pass it off as "the correct term".

Yes you can say "order of magnitude" for just about any step in exponent, including powers of 10. That you claim otherwise shows you as a poser. But that isn't the only place.

I still remember you posed to be a lawyer (people ask you advice you said), scientist and doctor. As a lawyer you claimed divorce law has nothing to do with once being married. As a scientist you claimed that brain size determined gender identity (and pointed to a study that says no such thing). As a Doctor you claimed prescribed plumbing changes to anyone who felt like a different gender. I'm rather impressed that ignorance can empower you to such heights of stupidity. Haven't you noticed that any time you try to say something it turns out wrong? I have. And it is funny that you keep trying to divert to different things hoping that no one else will.

3 orders of magnitude smaller than 10% (ie 1 in 1000) is delusional or, in On Lawn's case, wishful thinking.

Again, anytime you have to rudely refer to me in the third person, it is simply to label a strawman. In this case you pretend that I didn't even provide a link to support my claim. Simply ignorant, like the rest of your inane blatherings that I endure in the name of education.

But since you seem to be in favour of everyone being treated equally, lets tax all church revenue (sales tax, entertainment tax, etc.)

Oh man, when you have to get this desperate as to fling totally irrelevant topics from left field you should know it is time to stop. You are grasping at red-herrings.

Re:Isn't that question misleading? (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 10 years ago | (#9949249)

OnLawn Trolls Again [slashdot.org]
Of all the inane ways to feign intellectual superiority, you have to take a scientific buzzword you read on a post on slashdot somewhere and pass it off as "the correct term".

Sorry, but up here we are taught this back in high school. Or didn't you get as far as grade 10 physics? (or was it grade 8 math)?

I still remember you posed to be a lawyer (people ask you advice you said)
How does people asking me for legal advice equate to me posing as a lawyer? You are a Troll, OnLawn [slashdot.org]

As for the rest, it's just more crap from the OnLawn Troll (tm) [slashdot.org] , but what else would we expect :-)

As a lawyer you claimed divorce law has nothing to do with once being married.
What I said was that, in my jurisdiction, whether you are married or not is irrelevant to your legal responsabilities to your offspring.
As a scientist you claimed that brain size determined gender identity
Nope, I said that studies had shown that the size of one structure in the hypothalmus (not the whole brain, as OnLawn the Troll [slashdot.org] has repeatedly purposefully mis-stated.
As a Doctor you claimed prescribed plumbing changes to anyone who felt like a different gender
What I said was that we cannot change the brain to reflect the body, and that accepted medical practice was to change the plumbing instead. But when OnLawn Trolls [slashdot.org] , he can't let the facts interfere with "his" reality.

Re:Isn't that question misleading? (1)

On Lawn (1073) | more than 10 years ago | (#9950080)

Sorry, but up here we are taught this back in high school.

Taught what? [wordwizz.com]

How does people asking me for legal advice equate to me posing as a lawyer?

As if Lawyers don't give legal advice. You are truely hilarious sometimes. Where was that quote again? Where did you say people ask you for legal advice again?

What I said was that, in my jurisdiction,

Wow, you are posing as much more than a lawyer, you are posing as a judge. Are you a judge? If so then why do you say that something called the "Divorce Act" that specifically defines what kind of marriages it will consider somehow doesn't consider if you are married or not?

I just thought you were being an ignorant person, blatantly and obviously wrong. But now you are just another judge legislating from the bench by decree. That is a whole different ball of wax, now isn't it.

What I said was that we cannot change the brain to reflect the body

Which is false. And when invited to support your claim, you still have not.

But when OnLawn Trolls, he can't let the facts interfere with "his" reality.

Oh yes, the time that I post is really important ("write that down", says King Cedrick^H^H^H^H^H^HTom).

Re:Isn't that question misleading? (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 10 years ago | (#9948846)

Even 10% is outside of first sigma. Heck- anything outside of 20% earnings for Microsoft gets outsourced as being not part of the core business.

And they can be as much a minority as they want. I am tired of hearing people cry out for the government to do something for them because they have a persecution complex. If they were being persecuted that would be one thing. If they are just asking for Big Brother to take care of them, that is pathetic.

Now that's where you and I part ways- if anything the gay minority is on the wealthy side of normal. Therefore they're not asking Big Brother to take care of them- just grant them new rights that fit with their deviant lifestyle. The problem with that is once you grant one minority rights for their deviant lifestyle, it's rather dishonest not to offer the same rights to all competing deviant lifestyles. "But we're only asking for ourselves" doesn't change this one iota.

Re:Isn't that question misleading? (1)

Zirnike (640152) | more than 10 years ago | (#9944187)

They don't have to be thought of as 'normal' for it to be considered 'natural'. There's nothing wrong with them being gay, after all. And they don't want to be thought of as 'the norm', they just want to be accepted for who they are.

That's hardly an unreasonable request.

Re:Isn't that question misleading? (1)

On Lawn (1073) | more than 10 years ago | (#9944346)

They don't have to be thought of as 'normal' for it to be considered 'natural'.

They don't even have to be considered 'natural' to be given the deference to their desired lifestyle choices that you request.

Re:Isn't that question misleading? (1)

Zirnike (640152) | more than 10 years ago | (#9944373)

Equality is not deferance. Equality is equality.

And homosexuality is 'natural', in the sense that it is part of biology, so you point is moot, anyway.

Re:Isn't that question misleading? (1)

On Lawn (1073) | more than 10 years ago | (#9944513)

they just want to be accepted for who they are.

That is deference.

Equality is not deferance.

True.

And homosexuality is 'natural', in the sense that it is part of biology

Ah. Thats all you mean. Like I said, it does not even need to be called natural or normal to earn deference.

Re:Isn't that question misleading? (1)

Zirnike (640152) | more than 10 years ago | (#9944760)

M: they just want to be accepted for who they are.
Y: That is deference.
Websters: 1. Submission or courteous yielding to the opinion, wishes, or judgment of another.
2. Courteous respect

Heh. You're right for a change. It is deferance (definition 2). It is definatly not deferance (1), which is what I assumed your meaning to be. Accepting who they are is being courteous and being respectful of their identity.

M: Equality is not deferance.
Y: True.

You're trying to imply that we're submitting to their wishes. BZZZZTTTT, wrong! We are merely letting them choose their own path on their own. We're trying to give them equality and deferance (2), not deferance (1)

"Thats all you mean."

That's all I need to mean. It's sufficient.

"Like I said, it does not even need to be called natural or normal to earn deference."

Ummm... so? You state that like it's an argument. It's a non-sequitor.

Re:What's considered "normal" (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 10 years ago | (#9944919)

Since someone brought up the topic of trnasvestism, consider this: according to the standards of a couple hundred years ago, almost 100% of women in the US are transvestites - they wear men's clothing at one time or another (pants and jeans, for example).

If something is natural behaviour in the species, even if it is only natural behaviour for a portion of that species, then it is part of the norm by definition, since it is natural behaviour, not abnormal behaviour.

Lots of people like ice cream. Some people, though, are allergic to dairy products. This is part of the norm for the human population. In other words, we can say that human populations normally contain a certain percentage of people who don't get to enjoy ice cream. A sub-sample that didn't include a percentage who didn't would have to be considered abnormal.

Same thing if we were to find a sub-sample of the population with no gays, lesbians, or transsexual - we would have to conclude either that the survey technique was wrong, that people were lying, that the sampel is abnormal, or that there's been some genocide going on.

The problem is that some people find it convenient to think that "normal" == "majority", when this is not what normal means.

Re:Isn't that question misleading? (1)

On Lawn (1073) | more than 10 years ago | (#9945334)

You're trying to imply that we're submitting to their wishes.

Howso?

You state that like it's an argument.

I state it as a conclusion.

We're trying to give them equality

Some more equality than others...

Also in this case for the definitions you provide 1 is no different than 2. Or at least they are not exclusive. You can have courteous respect and yeild to their judgement of how they want to live their lives. I suggest both. But they need to show the same. This isn't a contest of "the person with the biggest persecution complex is always right".

News Flash: Zirnike don't know logic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9945378)

"Like I said, it does not even need to be called natural or normal to earn deference."

Ummm... so? You state that like it's an argument. It's a non-sequitor.

Care to point out the premises leading up to this statement? Without premises this can not be "a non-sequitor[sic]."

Don't quit your day job.

Re:News Flash: On Lawn don't know logic (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 10 years ago | (#9946559)

The On Lawn Troll [slashdot.org] is just trying to get your goat.

He's pissed at me since I've proven he's a troll.

I figure he deserves to be treated like certain litigious bastards [sco.com]

So, why not remind everyone of whom they are dealing with by linking to it?

On Lawn the Troll [slashdot.org] or http://slashdot.org/~tomhudson/journal/80081 [slashdot.org] On Lawn the Troll

Re:News Flash: On Lawn don't know logic (1)

Zirnike (640152) | more than 10 years ago | (#9949378)

Actually, he doesn't need to post AC to be a troll.

I shouldn't have started replying to him, but it's hard to let someone who is just so wrong go, you know what I mean?

Re:Isn't that question misleading? (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 10 years ago | (#9948651)

in the sense that it is part of biology

I've yet to see the proof of this. I've heard that it is genetic- but does it breed true? Is it a recessive gene? How can it be called a natural gene if it needs genetic engineering help to reproduce (such as test tube babies for lesbians)?

And the only answer I get when I dig is even though the human genome project has been completed- nobody can tell me which gene, or even which chromosome, causes people to be gay.

Re:Isn't that question misleading? (1)

Zirnike (640152) | more than 10 years ago | (#9949702)

"nobody can tell me which gene"

Of course not. Don't be deliberatly stupid... We can't even tell what gene regulates height, or metabolism yet. All the genome project does is document all the possible genes for humans - that doesn't tell us what they do any more than a map of the United States tells us that most of our biotechnology is in the Northeast. But homosexuality exists in other species besides even primates, so there's no question it is there for SOME reason, and is not strictly a 'choice' like you imply.

Re:Isn't that question misleading? (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 10 years ago | (#9949932)

Heterosexuality seems to be a choice- at least it was for me. I don't see why homosexuality isn't a choice as well.

BTW- as somebody who grew up on a farm, I've yet to see either an exclusively heterosexual OR homosexual male mammal. The sex drive is strong enough naturally that any given male will, without conscious choice, fuck anything that moves and quite a few things that don't (never seen anything funnier than an Angus Bull trying to impregnate a gas tank...but it happens). The idea that human sexuality is not by choice is an extraordinary statement- and extraordinary statements require extraordinary proof. Got any extraordinary proof for me?

Re:Isn't that question misleading? (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 10 years ago | (#9948627)

And they don't want to be thought of as 'the norm', they just want to be accepted for who they are.

Where the heck did you get this idea? Have you SEEN the stuff they're teaching to pre-teen children lately? The pro-gay-rights movement passed "just want to be accepted for who they are" a long time ago- now they want to be considered normal- to the point of having our children who haven't decided yet feel that it is OK to lust after somebody of the same sex.

And THAT, to me, is an unreasonable request- you can have your own children, just don't try to teach mine to be gay.

Re:Isn't that question misleading? (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 10 years ago | (#9945203)

Homosexuality is more than 50% curable though. Some studies suggest that homosexuality is more than 70% curable.
Okay, everyone, I know this is the 21st century, but we still have people who are living in the 1800s, so:
  1. Homosexuality and lesbianism are not medical conditions.
  2. They are not diseases.
  3. They do not require cures.
Suggested therapy - having to sit through a years' worth of "Will and Grace", followed by a season of "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy".

Re:Isn't that question misleading? (1)

On Lawn (1073) | more than 10 years ago | (#9945318)

Okay, everyone, I know this is the 21st century, but we still have people who are living in the 1800s, so:

They way you rely on insults is comical sometimes. For instance here you place a sideways insult so that people will think you are dissagreeing with me when you are not...

Homosexuality and lesbianism are not medical conditions.

Correct, they are lifestyle choices.

They are not diseases.

Correct, they are lifestyle choices.

They do not require cures.

Correct, they are lifestyle choices that can be altered by choices made by the individual (as these studies show).

having to sit through a years' worth of "Will and Grace"

What a guy. Show them a fictional sitcom over and over again until they think it is reality, that ought to get them out of the 19th century.

Re:Isn't that question misleading? (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 10 years ago | (#9946435)

>On Lawn the troll [slashdot.org] again lies...

If you believe that homosexuality and lesbianism are lifestyle choices, why would you post this: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=117401&cid=994 3726 [slashdot.org]

Homosexuality is more than 50% curable though. Some studies suggest that homosexuality is more than 70% curable.
Stupid troll, you're not fooling anyone but yourself [slashdot.org]

Re:Isn't that question misleading? (1)

On Lawn (1073) | more than 10 years ago | (#9948616)

Do you really think people don't follow links? Do you think they can't read? You are truely an idiot. I put in that post two ways of looking at it, and the one I thought was better. I wanted to see if you would really jump on something so tempting to take out of context. And you did. I couldn't believe anyone could be so dense, but you were.

Well, as I pointed out before out of context remarks are best countered by putting them in context. And just incase you know something about your friends that I don't (like they really can't follow links) I'll just post the next paragraph to re-establish context.

Though I should put that in another way, more than 50% (and even as high as 70%) of people who wish to leave the lifestyle are successful with heterosexual relationships. That is a better rate than hypochondriacs.


Look that isn't me posting after you point something out. That is in the very same post.

So what about that paragraph would lead someone to conclude that I think that homosexuality (which is the same thing as lesbianism, you moron) is a lifestyle choice? Anything in there indicate that I think it is a lifestyle choice? Anything?

You are truely comical in your ignorance sometimes. Like Donald Duck hitting his thumb with a hammer, going off on a long-winded string of quacking explatives. Only with you it is shooting yourself in the foot, over and over again.

A sharper person would have recognised the trap before they walked into it ;)

Re:Isn't that question misleading? (1)

On Lawn (1073) | more than 10 years ago | (#9943655)

BTW, type 1 diabetes has proven to be curable.

If gender identification is a physical disorder as you say, then such a cure can be found for them also. I don't think it reasonable to expect that changing the plumbing is a cure any more than amputation of organsor body parts cures cancer.

Re:Isn't that question misleading? (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 10 years ago | (#9945171)

It appears that once the gender identification is set (in the first and second trimester), it is not reversable. They've tried. In the case of primary transsexuals, all they end up with is suicides.

We can't rearrange the brain to agree with the plumbing, so what's so bad about doing what we can, and rearranging the plumbing to agree with the brain?

Besides, rearranging the plumbing is less drastic than brain surgery. You can replace all sorts of body parts, and yet you are still you. Modify the brain, and the person you are is lost forever. Just look at anyone with a degenerative brain disease, or a brain injury.

The patient no longer suffers from gender dysphora - sounds like a cure to me.

Re:Isn't that question misleading? (1)

On Lawn (1073) | more than 10 years ago | (#9945311)

It appears that once the gender identification is set (in the first and second trimester), it is not reversable.

You still haven't shown a study that says that gender is decided by any type of brain size. I find it funny that you continue to assert this as if it was scientific fact, even after the fallacy of it was pointed out to you. Truely one of the most stubborn "victory through ignorance" displays I've seen on slashdot.

We can't rearrange the brain to agree with the plumbing,

Another false assertion. But keep trying maybe someone will believe you. Maybe someone with a fetish for men with breasts.

You can replace all sorts of body parts, and yet you are still you.

And here you finally say something correct. You *can* replace body parts and a man is still a man and a woman is still a woman.

The patient no longer suffers from gender dysphora - sounds like a cure to me.

They still suffer from it. They still think they are a gender they are not, no? But then again your logic is based on if you are attracted then they must be a woman.

Re:Isn't that question misleading? (1)

sillypixie (696077) | more than 10 years ago | (#9943651)

So if a stranger were to see Norm on the street, would they see a man dressed as a woman, or a woman?

I think that the idea isn't to force people to pretend not to notice that a person is a transsexual, the idea is to get people to take a second look at this idea that transsexuals cannot be alluring, attractive, feminine people. For you, Norm will never be any of those things. That's ok - most women aren't any of those things once you know them either. I imagine that some illusions are lost for the husband of a woman who gets a boob-job.

But it's nice to make eye contact with a stranger across a crowded room, and to know that he finds you sexy. You probably don't want to do anything about it, least of all screw him - but it makes you feel good to know that just for that moment, he wanted it. If a transsexual can have that feeling with a stranger, I imagine it would make them feel as good as I feel when it happens to me... and if a little surgery can make that happen (either for men or for women), what's the harm?

Pixie

Re:Isn't that question misleading? (1)

On Lawn (1073) | more than 10 years ago | (#9944088)

the idea is to get people to take a second look at this idea that transsexuals cannot be alluring, attractive, feminine people.

If the idea is that someone can construct a sex object from a man, or even mannequine, is not interesting. Heck, people find Laura Croft to be sexy. If the idea is if that person is "sexy enough to allure men" then that would be rather degrading to apply that metric to decide if they are females. It is as if to say that a female's most defining charectaristic is to arouse men.

Tom is fond of calling humans animals. I'd be interested in if we should re-define animal sexuality based on what males in that species are attracted to also. Or if a flower (which attracts a third-party for their sex) should be redefined based on attractiveness too.

No, to come up with an inconsistent definition of what a female is, just for people, just based on 'alluring' males is petty at best, and demeaning at worst.

wrong question (1)

nusratt (751548) | more than 10 years ago | (#9948705)

BANG her?
Hell, purely from what I can infer from the wording of the poll, I decided not even to LOOK at [her?]!

But that has nothing to do with my being [abcxyz]-"phobic".
My personal principles of tolerance are that I (and society and government) should respect your right to be what you are (or what you want to be),
and shouldn't persecute you or discriminate in PUBLIC matters (e.g. employment, housing, etc.).

You DON'T, however, have some natural right to expect me to have LIKING (or any other particular mental state, including unremarking obliviousness) for you,
merely because you view yourself as belonging to a group which is in some respect "special".

And you're not justified to pigeon-hole me as being anything in particular (other than libertarian) on the basis of the above statements,
any more than I would be justified to automatically categorize you as being anti-[Republican / vegetarian / hip-hop / etc.].
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>