Journal tomhudson's Journal: New poll: Would you bang her? 258
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
Interesting Poll (Score:2)
Re:Interesting Poll (Score:2)
Now the question is, how would we make this into a slashdot poll?
Options like:
Re:Interesting Poll (Score:2)
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
Re:Interesting Poll (Score:2)
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. Eve
Re:Interesting Poll (Score:2)
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
Re:Interesting Poll (Score:2)
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 n
Re:Interesting Poll (Score:2)
Guess you forgot to check the "post anonymously" b
Re:Interesting Poll (Score:2)
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 f
Re:Interesting Poll (Score:2)
Now be a good litle troll and go play in traffic.
Re:Interesting Poll (Score:2)
More accusations? Enough said.
Proof that On Lawn is trolling here (Score:2)
Re:Proof that On Lawn is trolling here (Score:2)
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 th
Re:New poll: Do poll's establish truth? (Score:2)
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 m
Re:Proof that On Lawn is trolling here (Score:2)
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:On Lawn STILL lies (Score:2)
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:New poll: Do poll's establish truth? (Score:2)
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:On Lawn STILL lies (Score:2)
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 peopl
Re:New poll: Do poll's establish truth? (Score:2)
Re:On Lawn STILL lies (Score:2)
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]
Re:Proof that On Lawn is trolling here (Score:2)
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 (Score:2)
Stupid OnLawn Trolls Again! [slashdot.org] Read it and weep - nobody else is buying your BS.
Re:On Lawn STILL lies (Score:2)
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
Re:Proof that On Lawn is trolling here (Score:2)
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 thi
Re:Interesting Poll (Score:2)
Thanks for the good word. I see y
Re:Interesting Poll (Score:2)
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
Re:Interesting Poll (Score:2)
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 (Score:2)
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
Re:Interesting Poll (Score:2)
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 fl
Re:Interesting Poll (Score:2)
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 (Score:2)
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 irrespon
Re:Interesting Poll (Score:2)
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,
Re:Interesting Poll (Score:2)
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
Re:Interesting Poll (Score:2)
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
Re:Interesting Poll (Score:2)
Most operations are published as step-by-step instructions allowing other doctors to duplicate the work
So.. you refute my point that performing lockstep operations doesn't make you a member of a field by saying that people who already are doctors perform lockstep operations after they've joined the field?
I say that the same ends can be achieved either way.
Of course the same ends can be achieved either way. That still doesn't make the person responsible. You could tie me to the nose of a rocket and
Re:Interesting Poll (Score:2)
Re:Interesting Poll (Score:2)
Or for that matter, explain away the new sex education textbooks being used in the United States to teach 6th graders, the ones that claim there are five genders to humanity instead of two.
People whine about text books all the time, yet nobody has ever actually showed me an example of one, in use, that supports their complaint. It is unlikely, at best, that such textbooks would simply "appear" all of a sudden, as seems to be the suggestion by most people who bring them up.
See, textbooks are huge busines
Two words ... (Score:2)
OnLawn is a troll [slashdot.org]
Re:Interesting Poll (Score:2)
Yet another class of people to grind under the wheels of what you claim to be "progress".
Re:Interesting Poll (Score:2)
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 (Score:2)
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 a
Re:Interesting Poll (Score:2)
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 bring
Re:Interesting Poll (Score:2)
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
Re:Interesting Poll (Score:2)
'nuff said.
Nope (Score:2)
Re:Nope (Score:2)
(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 yourse
Re:Nope (Score:2)
Re:Nope (Score:2)
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 (Score:2)
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 (Score:2)
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
Re:Nope (Score:2)
Re:Nope (Score:2)
More On Lawn BS (Score:2)
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:
The world is changing. (Score:2)
She won the show with a record breaking 76% of the final vote!
The answer depends... (Score:2)
Isn't that question misleading? (Score:2)
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
Re:Isn't that question misleading? (Score:2)
If you read my preamble to the question, I am trying to point out that attitudes have changed regarding gays, lesbian, and transsexuals :-)
I hope that covers it, and it seems that most people have taken it that way.
The real question
Re:Isn't that question misleading? (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re:Isn't that question misleading? (Score:2)
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 partia
Re:Isn't that question misleading? (Score:2)
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 t
Re:Isn't that question misleading? (Score:2)
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 re
Re:Isn't that question misleading? (Score:2)
Re:Isn't that question misleading? (Score:2)
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? (Score:2)
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
Re:Isn't that question misleading? (Score:2)
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
Re:Isn't that question misleading? (Score:2)
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 doct
Re:Isn't that question misleading? (Score:2)
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)?
How does people asking me for legal advice equate to me posing as a lawyer? You are a Troll, OnLawn [slashdot.org]
As for
Re:Isn't that question misleading? (Score:2)
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 Ac
Re:Isn't that question misleading? (Score:2)
That's hardly an unreasonable request.
Re:Isn't that question misleading? (Score:2)
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? (Score:2)
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- yo
Re:Isn't that question misleading? (Score:2)
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? (Score:2)
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? (Score:2)
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
Re:What's considered "normal" (Score:2)
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 pe
Re:Isn't that question misleading? (Score:2)
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
Re:News Flash: On Lawn don't know logic (Score:2)
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:Isn't that question misleading? (Score:2)
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:News Flash: On Lawn don't know logic (Score:2)
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? (Score:2)
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' lik
Re:Isn't that question misleading? (Score:2)
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 sexu
Re:What's considered "normal" (Score:2)
Where did you take mathematics? Natural is not the opposite of abnormal, normal is the opposite of abnormal- and both words have specific meaning in statistics. Normalization means to bring with 1 sigma on a bell curve. Thus, yes, normal ~=, but not always equals, majority, since the majori
Re:Isn't that question misleading? (Score:2)
Huh? Man, you've got a weird way of saying 'is quite obvious'. Come on, do you really think that people would risk being tied to a fence and beaten, or tolerate the discrimination they do, if it really was a choice they could make? A lot of gay people spent years trying to be straight before they realized they were gay. Gay people who 'choose' to be straight fail - often. That's enough proof.
Re:News Flash: On Lawn don't know logic (Score:2)
Funny, though, how his supporters seem to be mostly ACs :-)
Mind you, I have work to do, so I'm limiting myself to responding to just a few of the OnLawn Troll(tm) [slashdot.org]'s posts.
Re:Isn't that question misleading? (Score:2)
Re:Isn't that question misleading? (Score:2)
We're not... We're trying to let homosexuals have the same rights to the same form of marriage (2 people in a union*) that everyone else does. It doesn't even matter if it's a choice or not, even though it wasn't (why would gays hide/ignore their 'choice'. They don't like homosexuality, why would they keep doing it if it was a choice?). It's not subjective evidence.
Re:Isn't that question misleading? (Score:2)
That's not the same form of marriage everyone else does- there's ALWAYS been restrictions on marraige, age, gender, and genetic relation are the common three, but many societies added even more restrictions on top of that- you're not free to get married again if your divorce isn't final, for instance.
Re:Isn't that question misleading? (Score:2)
Okay, everyone, I know this is the 21st century, but we still have people who are living in the 1800s, so:
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? (Score:2)
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
Re:Isn't that question misleading? (Score:2)
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]
Stupid troll, you're not fooling anyone but yourself [slashdot.org]
Re:Isn't that question misleading? (Score:2)
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 (
Re:Isn't that question misleading? (Score:2)
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? (Score:2)
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,
Re:Isn't that question misleading? (Score:2)
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
Re:Isn't that question misleading? (Score:2)
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 husba
Re:Isn't that question misleading? (Score:2)
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
wrong question (Score:2)
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 me
yeah, she's gorgeous (Score:3, Insightful)
However, this whole issue is a weapon of mass distraction, and I only post here to point out that we shouldn't be taking it too seriously. Do you think people with real power give a fuck about this issue one way or another? It's just another method of dividing the masses.
Re:That's Miriam. (Score:2)
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]
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 fi
Re:That's Miriam. (Score:2)