Skip to main content

As usual as Friday approaches, I start panicking because I haven't a clue what to write about.  That especially happens around midterm as we crawl towards Spring Break.  On more week before refreshing can commence.

It is often the case, however, that events provide an idea.  This one crystalized with plf515's morning offering, WGLB presents: Stereotype.

In my mind I teamed this together with several other recent events, listed after the fold, and the idea of writing about teaching against stereotypes arose.  I'm hoping to generate some helpers both for now and to pick up the burden after I die.

Stereotypes are ubiquitous.  I battle them consistently.  All my political battles, not just for GLBT rights, but also for Native American rights, against the English-only doofi, for the poor and downtrodden, against racism and religious and ethnic discrimination, for the equality of women, against bullying...and so many, many more, all have at their root the battle against stereotypes.

Originally posted at Docudharma

The events of the past week that I can recall in my beleaguered state (there may have been more):

  • appearing as a transsexual woman in The Vagina Monologues a week ago (but a straight one...which was a step out of character for me)
  • a recent "conversation" with people who insist that atheists are treated more poorly than GLBT people and therefore we should gain rights for atheists while we delay the quest for equal rights for GLBT people
  • a lunch conversation Tuesday about transsexualism open to the campus community here at Bloomfield College, to which ten people showed up, including the academic dean
  • a seminar presentation in the Women's Studies class, Changing Women's Lives, at BC
  • an attempt last night to educate someone BarbinMd's Stick An Ice Pick In Your Ear Or Attend CPAC ... You Make The Call from yesterday, someone who utilized quite a panoply of negative stereotypes of transsexual women in defending his bigoted behavior
  • Africa's plea for advice about ho to fight bullying to protect her niece, Seeking Advice on Bullying, also from this morning (if you can help, you should go do so)
  • the memories of being denied medical service, which arose in the seminar as well as in Obama to nix so-called "conscience rule" by SusanG.

I'm sure other incidents will pop into my head as I write this and as the evening progresses.

I was hesitant about doing The Vagina Monologues for probably longer than made the director comfortable.  The fact is that they chose to do that piece over one from The Women behind the Veil because they figured they had an actual live transwoman on campus.  And who better to be in They beat the girl out of my boy, right?

Well, they cajoled and guilted me into doing it...and I then probably stepped on somebody's toes by saying I would do it if I could do the Calpernia Addams role.  While she is straight and I'm a lesbian, I wanted justice done to her role.  If you don't know the story, her boyfriend, PFC Barry Winchell, was beaten to death for being gay.  No matter what you may have heard from anyone, including the Human Rights Campaign, he was not.  When as man dates a woman, we do not consider him gay.  And transsexual women are, in fact, women.  And some of us are lesbians and some of us are heterosexual and some of us are bisexual...about one third of each.  Calpernia was not interested in the slightest in having a relationship with a gay man.  Barry was heterosexual.  But he was beaten to death because of a stereotype, the stereotype that says we are "really men" and implied that therefore he must be gay.

You may have noticed that there are quite a few people around, people who proclaim themselves to be liberals and progressives, agree with that stereotype.  Fighting that is why I blog.  It's a tougher battle than one would think.  I would have hoped that it would be harder to educate our enemies than those who purport to be our friends.

In the program at TVM there was a blurb about the Tuesday lunch presentation.  Almost nobody saw it.  Or if they did, they had "better things to do."  Or more important things.  This is a college after all.

So there were only ten people who showed up:  one man and nine women:  both college personal counselors, the Dean of Academic Affairs, the college's nurse, my partner, who is the Coordinator of Women's Studies (which sponsored the event), two students, a biology professor, me and the lone man, the director of the ESP (Enhanced Support for Pre-Nursing) program.  One student worker was in the corner of the room, working at a computer.

Frankly I had hoped for more.  We offer majors in Social Work, Criminal Justice, Nursing, Psychology, Human Relations and a certificate program in Diversity Training.  I had hoped at least a smattering of those students would have understood...or would have been told by their instructors...how this opportunity could have helped prepare them better in their chosen fields.

But alas, it didn't happen.  The ten of us ate our rubber fish as I opened the floor for questions.  Although I sometimes have integrated my poetry...and sometimes my art...into what could be classified more as performance pieces...I asked two questions at the beginning and we went on from there:

What do you think you know about transsexual people?  Do you know any transgender people?

From there on it was sufficient for it to be just a Q & A session.  Let those who wish to learn steer the learning.

The seminar students were a bit different.  First of all, they were required to be there.  That could have meant that there would be people present who were violently opposed to who don't fit their notion of propriety.  On the other hand there was a larger group (around 25) and they had supposedly done some reading leading up to this:  Leslie Feinberg's We are all works in progress (pdf).  Thus the first order of business was to separate me from my friend Les, explaining some ways in which we are similar and some of the many ways in which sie and I are different.  One of the major one of those is that Leslie identifies as transgender with regards to gender and I identify as being gendered, a woman.

The students were mostly nurses, with a few sociology and criminal justice majors...and a few scattered others, like the woman majoring in graphic design.

We spent an hour and a half gnawing on the questions which they came up with.  Some of the students remained silent the entire time.  Some hardly looked up.  Some glared at me.  But mostly there were questions which deserved sincere and thoughtful answers...and stereotypes that needed to be debunked.

I understand that Christine Jorgensen had to say what she did...to give her doctors the answers they wanted to hear...back before her surgery in 1952.  But it created a transsexual narrative that many others had to repeat and that went a long way to creating the stereotypes that haunt transfolk to this day.  Becoming ourselves is the point of our separate journeys.  We shouldn't have to lie in order to do that.

So I told the truths that I know, as I perceive them.  I told the truths of my life and explained when I could how my life is atypical...and about how their is no typical here...that we are all different...all on our own paths...all separate works in progress.  And I tried to convey how this word "all" included them.

Just as it includes you, dear readers.  Our battle is for your right to be yourself.  And we will wage it with or without your help...and with or without your obstruction.

The instructor for the seminar, acting as my shill during a lull in the conversation, asked me about my treatment by the medical community.  Included in the several related stories I reported was the one I shared this morning in SusanG's story.

As someone who has been refused treatment...

...and thrown out of an endocrinologist's office for being a transwoman (I was there because I had just had my thyroid irradiated and my GP thought an expert should be consulted about that), calling it a "conscience rule" masks what it really is:  a rule supporting bigotry.

That was a painful event.  It still is.  I still have fears about seeing any new doctor.  And my present doctor is moving further away.  I'm not sure what I am going to do about that.  I've had to educate every doctor I've interacted with on how to treat me...medically as well as humanely.

And just like my interactions with people politically, in my constant battle against being treated as subhuman, as less than equal, as nothing more than a stereotype, I will have Truth as my only weapon.


Wings of Truth
A Modern Cave

Spreading truth
in the face
of ignorance
we return to the cave
after experiencing
the beauty and wonder
of a better place
a more just world
a brighter future

We understand
the difficulty
you face
having lived in the
in the mostly dark
having only experienced
the shadows
that passed as reality

What we don't understand
is why you can
no longer hear

--Robyn Elaine Serven
--February 27, 2009

Originally posted to Robyn's Perch on Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 04:22 PM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Questions do get truthful answers... (47+ / 0-)

    ...but only if they are asked.

    Poem was inspired by a lecture I attended Tueday on the Birth of Science.

    Music from Jeff Beck Group's album, Truth.  I thought it relevent, but maybe you have to be here where I am.

  •  great thread, keep up the teaching! (15+ / 0-)

    This White House is way different. It's better! ~Rachel Maddow

    by catchaz on Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 04:27:21 PM PST

  •  Good diary Robyn (11+ / 0-)

    Your poetry is lovely, as usual.  Dealing with stereotypes can be difficult.  Many people close their minds to learning more in order to break through that barrier.  I've seen it happen though.

    Never stop teaching.

    The smallest feline is a masterpiece. ~Leonardo Da Vinci~

    by FrugalGranny on Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 04:38:16 PM PST

  •  You are the only transexual person I know.... (13+ / 0-)

    even though we never actually met.  There was a....now I'm into the problem of terminology, and like so much of issues dealing with sensitive subjects, use of the wrong term is usually taken as a hostile act.

    I moved to a city north of San Diego with my wife about eight years ago from Manhattan.  Joined a tennis club where we have several men's days.  I expected that this wouldn't last, as women, some better players than I, would want to join.

    Never happened.  In this fairly conservative community, sex roles are still accepted in most areas of life as they were in decades before.  There are mixed doubles, but other than that, there is gender separation that no one is challenging.

    What's a bit ironic, is that (those who are older will remember) this facility is "the Bobby Riggs Tennis Club"  once owned by the man who made his biggest name by the Match of the Century with Billy Jean King.

    Not much has changed around here, however.

    So, yes sexual stereotypes, and most stereotypes, are still with us, but not all are pernicious, merely facilitative of getting along in life.

    •  Some people can get along in life. (15+ / 0-)

      I'd use the phrase "in society" at the end myself.  Some people can't dio so and be who they are, because this society has rules that too many people accept without a thought.

      When one starts questioning some of those truisms, one discovers how they limit the possibilities of human development.  And discovers many other ways in which we have too often accepted unnecessary control.

      •  Stereotype of an atheist: (9+ / 0-)

        I will share this letter to a friend about an event yesterday, how without much effort....actually the result of tons of thinking and writing about the issue...I may have changed a bit that stereotype:
        --

        Mike

        I know you would never cause anyone emotional pain.  You couldn't do what you do, in both of your professions, if you didn't care about people.

        Interesting occurrence a couple hours ago.  I went to my City Council meeting, Encinitas CA, town of about 60K north of San Diego.  I had been instrumental a couple years ago in getting them to restore the title of our annual parade, to "Holiday" after the mayor had changed it to "Christmas Parade."

        It was a heartfelt, personal presentation to the council of how religious dissension can destroy polities.  They saw the light.

        This evening I rushed into the chambers, since I was late and had trouble  printing out my talk, which was how evidence shows that installation of four way stop signs actually increase accidents.  As I was standing to submit my speakers request, the ex mayor, my friend Dan, said, "Al, since you're up, you can lead us in the pledge of allegiance."

        Oops!  I had been disturbed that they always start off the meeting with the pledge, and select someone to lead it.  I had thought about my response if I were ever selected, to majestically cite West Virginia v. Barnett(e) and the timeless words of Justice Jackson. But actually, I just started to stay away from the council meetings for that reason and good old fashioned apathy.

        But having been caught unawares, my response came easy, "I prefer to take a pass on that........Religious reasons"   And then I stood silently with my hand over my heart as someone else was selected to lead the rest of the audience.

        Was that a cop out?  Actually, I'm proud of myself.  It's like being out of the closet, without making a big deal of it.  (and it was on cable TV, and will be on the city's web site, so it wasn't exactly hidden)  No one mentioned it as a few of us chatted after the council meeting was over.

        But make no mistake about it.   You, and your efforts, were at that meeting.  You are strengthening individuals' ability to resist the ambient pressure for religious conformity without your winning a single case.

        Regards

        Al

        Actually, It was Mike Newdow who by his tireless courageous efforts is enabling change to occur by agents such as myself.

  •  Thanks for being so open. (15+ / 0-)

    It's difficult, but I don't believe bigotry can be eliminated without openness.

    I've had people tell me that they've become more accepting of gay people after meeting me and asking questions about it.

    It's just putting yourself out there that's incredibly hard.

    "ENOUGH!" - President Barack Hussein Obama

    by indiemcemopants on Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 04:46:05 PM PST

  •  I have no words for the diary... (8+ / 0-)

    except feelings of Ick for what happens when people don't even try to understand other people.

    The art on the other hand... At first glance I thought it was woven, because of the wavy effect. It has a yin yang effect without actually being one, and I honestly think I like the color choice better than the usual light and dark. Earth colors and water colors just don't have the cultural baggage of white and black. (Why, yes, I did read one too many ibonewits comments about dualism this week.)

    And the Plato's Republic reference (if an entire poem can rightly be called a reference)? Wonderful.

    Can you see this inaugural, Dr. King? Did you see this?

    by Cassandra Waites on Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 05:05:43 PM PST

  •  In order to learn (9+ / 0-)

    one must first recognize and acknowledge one's ignorance. I have only recently reached the place where I acknowledged and owned my own ignorance on LGBT issues, so only now have I begun to learn.

    I think that's the biggest and most unfortunate battle you face...getting folks like me to realize how much we have to learn.

    Lovely diary Robyn.

    ...but you can just call me iriti... -5.62, -6.56

    by it really is that important on Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 05:10:54 PM PST

  •  How's this for teaching against stereotype: (11+ / 0-)

    (Ok, this should be a diary, but I've never told this story, and it just spilled out of me. Please forgive the length, and I'll be grateful for your thoughts/reactions.)

    2.5 years ago, on the second day of class in an AP Psych group, the following took place...

    It was my first week in this school. I had been brought in to establish a psychology program in the school. 2 on-level courses for seniors, and 2 more intense, faster moving AP courses.

    As a new teacher, no one knew me but the principal who interviewed me. And certainly none of the students knew what to expect. So, as high schoolers do, they were determined to make the class their own (and not in a good way).

    I spent the first day explaining what a "safe and open" conversational environment means and that while this is a psychology class, it is not psychological analysis or therapy. That each student should feel free to ask any question they want, either in the class or to me personally is part of that message. A lot of people take the class because they know someone with a disorder, or suspect one in themselves. While I do not offer help, I can help them better understand measurement, definition, and treatment of disorders and recommend them to a counselor or other professional.

    So, on that second day, I'm introducing nature vs. nurture, and in the conversation, a boy asks, "Does that mean, that, like, if a girl is raised by a single mother and her mom is gay that she'll be gay too?" As he was at about the word, "mother" I realized what he was asking, and thought- this might be a good group after all. Open consideration of the topic at hand, thinking that went beyond the scope of the frame, and his demeanor and halting speech indicated not snark, but a genuine and somewhat hesitant curiosity. He may have known someone in this situation and his question appears to be real. I'll take it seriously. Here was a question I could work with to do some real good.

    By the time he got to the word, "be" in that question (at which point, I had already had my entire thought-reaction) a girl in the back corner of the room, full of venom and disdain, looked at the floor and through clenched teeth said, "That is the dumbest question I have ever heard. I mean, really, why are we even talking about this?"

    omg

    I have only had a very few moments in my many years teaching where I really wanted to grab a student and give them a good hard shake. This was one of them. I first looked at the boy and told him that his question was a good one, and that I would answer it in a minute. I looked at the girl and told her something like this, "That, however, is the most stupid comment I have ever heard in a classroom. If that is the best you have to offer, the most insightful, thoughtful, mature engagement with this idea that is in you, then you are no longer welcome here. We spent nearly the entire day yesterday coming to terms with what it would mean to share this experience together, and you either ignored that or never heard it. You have a choice to make. I suggest you carefully consider the options."

    I returned to the boy's question, and in tears (crocodile or real, I'm to this day not sure, as she hid her face but was making so much noise there was no way to miss her exit) she interrupted my answer and left the room. I sent another girl after her with kleenex from the box on my desk. I invited the 2nd girl to take her to the nurse or the office if she was uncomfortable coming back to class.

    If you're still with me, you may interested to know that 4 months later she asked me for a college app. letter of recommendation. I had plenty to write about. Most of it good. How she had changed from that first day in my class into someone who was prepared every day, asked searching questions herself, went out of her way to appropriately develop or amplify others' thoughts.

    I was 1 of only 2 teachers she asked. Turns out her mother had pissed off everyone else in the school by defending her perennial bad behavior to such a point that noone would write for her. Hence, her change of heart and good behavior in my class. Or, she genuinely changed and respected what I/we was/were doing. I may never know.

    I do know that at the end of that year she was caught cheating on the required NY state exit exam, the Regents, during the test. She was told to stop. She then looked at her neighbor's answer sheet again. Was told to stop again, and that if she did a third time her test would be taken and she would have to take it again at a later date. She did again. Her test was taken and she was sent to the office.

    The principal had her sit in her office and finish the test and included it in the regular batch to be scored so as to avoid the drama that would have come from her mother upon hearing that her daughter was at risk of not getting a diploma because she cheated on the test. The proctor-teacher was livid.

    I, however, was not surprised.

    I never met her mother, I never got a call. I don't think she ever told her mother what had happened that day. I got nothing but straight-up respect from that girl all year.

    But, the real message in that story was the one received by every other student in that class. They all knew I meant business and that I would protect their curiosity, their questions, and their learning while in that room.

    Over all, they were one of the best classes I've ever taught.

    Words ought to be a little wild, for they are the assaults of thoughts on the unthinking. -J.M. Keynes

    by elropsych on Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 05:15:15 PM PST

  •  I know one thing about transgendered people (11+ / 0-)

    but it's a biggie: They're people.  The rest is detail.

    As my kindergarten teacher (Ms. Grace Kumar - a wonderful woman) used to say, when we were rough with each other, verbally or physically:\

    Be gentle.  That's a person.

  •  Stereotypes as cognitive constructs (5+ / 0-)

    Stereotyping is a part of the human condition.
    There is an economy to it.  If we didn't have stereotypes, every exposure to each instance of a category would have to be treated uniquely.  Obviously, that would not be useful.  

    If we had to learn all the properties of every chair we ever encountered before we could interact with it, we'd never sit down.

    Having learned what "chairs" are, we develop a category or class.  Some examples of that class are "better" than others.  When I say "chair" I doubt you think of a bean bag chair.  But we would all agree that bean bag chairs are legitimately chairs - even if you use them as tables on occasion.  

    The class of "furniture" is constructed the same way as our class of "chairs".  Some examples of furniture are "better" than others.  When I say "furniture" I doubt you think of door knobs.  But would a house be complete without them?  

    Obviously, chairs are a prototypical example of furniture.  These prototypes are useful because they help us decide whether new examples belong in the same category or not based on how similar they are to the prototype.

    Deciding whether something goes in one category or another is the basis of most of our cognitive processing.  We spend most of our day treating different things as if they are similar, or drawing distinctions between similar things.  We then act on those decisions.  That's what categories are for; making decisions so we can act.

    But people aren't furniture so how does this apply?
    People, like chairs, are objects in our world.  We interact with them.  We have expectations about them when we encounter them.  And -- this is the important part -- they have characteristic properties.  

    Stereotypes are not magical things.  They are objects with properties that have certain values.  The properties come in two flavors: distinctive and representative.  Some characteristics can be both.  

    A representative feature is true of most members of the class.  They allow us to treat different objects as similar.  A distinctive feature is true of a small portion of the class, but never true of members in the comparison class.  It may be a small thing, but it allows us to treat objects that are otherwise very similar as if they were very different.

    Being able to support our weight is representative of chairs.  It is also representative of tables.  Having arms is distinctive of chairs, but not necessarily representative.  Having a back is both representative and distinctive of chairs.  

    When we build our stereotypes, we do it based on our experience.  This is where the problems come in.  

    Clearly, the more experience we have with a category, the more representative features we encounter.  The more experience we have with a category, the more features we encounter that are  representative and distinctive.  The more representative and distinctive features we recognize, the better our stereotype.

    If we have an experience with a new class and only learn the distinctive features... we generalize and treat them as if they were representative.  If we only saw chairs with legs, would we consider a bean bag chair a chair?  If the only African-American men we encounter are in prison, would we consider a black president really "African-American" ... or something else?

    A secondary problem is the speed at which we create categories.  You really don't want to encounter too many tigers before you realize they are a threat... you may not get that many chances.  So we make categories after only a handful of encounters.  Obviously that leads to sampling errors.  

    This sets us up for the big problem: prejudice.  We pre-judge members of categories before they get a chance to speak for themselves.  The way we do this is interesting.  It is not based on the characteristics we see.  We refer to our stereotype and automatically assign values to the characteristics we have not observed in the new instance.  We set inappriopriate default values for these features.  Then we mistake our confusion for fact.

    Chairs don't mind if we treat them like tables.  Honest people do mind when we treat them like criminals.  

    The solution:  We will always have prejudice, but as long as we recognize that and refrain from assigning default values to unobserved characteristics we will find life gives us many opportunities to improve our categories, making them more likely to reflect the world we actually live in as opposed to the one we imagine in our confusion.

  •  Atheists vs. GLBT (11+ / 0-)

    vs. Black vs. whatever....
    I think we should forget trying to decide who has it worst, and concentrate on trying to make it better.

    For everyone.

    •  I was annoyed about the folks that... (9+ / 0-)

      ...seemed to think the work on GLBT rights should be altered to include atheist rights.  Now.  That GLBT people shouldn't move ahead without defeating religion.

      •  If we all fight for human rights (9+ / 0-)

        then we all fight together.

        If we each fight for our own groups' rights, some of us risk fighting each other.

        •  It's a conundrum. (8+ / 0-)

          Do we keep pushing ahead, or stop whenever someone yells at us from behind.  Can't we keep moving forward while helping others catch up simultaneously?

          I am perfectly fine with people being religious...or not...as long as they don't inflict their beliefs on me.  I do not believe it is my battle to join someone else to defeat a foe of theirs who is not my foe, and in fact includes some of my friends.

          •  Where's the foe? (7+ / 0-)

            I'm for rights for all humans - atheist or believer, GBLT or not, Jew, Christian, Muslim etc., Black, White etc.

            The only foe is bigots.

            •  I was referring to a discussion from earlier... (6+ / 0-)

              ...in the week.  One person's bigot...

              In this case I was accused of being an atheophobe.

              •  With ample reason. (0+ / 0-)

                a recent "conversation" with people who insist that atheists are treated more poorly than GLBT people and therefore we should gain rights for atheists while we delay the quest for equal rights for GLBT people

                That is a disgusting misrepresentation of what your opponents were arguing.

                Despite your repeated lies, no one on that thread--or, I suspect, anywhere else you have been--argued either (1) "that atheists are treated more poorly than GLBT people" or (2) that "we should gain rights for atheists while we delay the quest for equal rights for GLBT people." You fabricated both of those ideas out of thin air to suit your own agenda--a fact I pointed out more than once in the previous thread. You had no response but to continue repeating the brutal misrepresentations, first there and now here; you just don't have the decency to give up these particular lies.

                So whether or not you're an atheophobe, you are demonstrably a liar.

                Moreover, one might wonder where the hell you get the gall to accuse atheists who have made a career out of fighting for GLBT rights of wanting to "delay the quest for" those rights. You really have no conscience, do you?

                I am cognizant of the interrelatedness of all communities and states. I cannot sit idly by in Atlanta and not be concerned about what happens in Birmingham. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. Never again can we afford to live with the narrow, provincial "outside agitator" idea. Anyone who lives inside the United States can never be considered an outsider anywhere within its bounds.

                - Martin Luther King, Jr., Letter from a Birmingham Jail (1963)

                •  The person I responded to said exactly that. (0+ / 0-)

                  Maybe you didn't, but I was responding to the statement I responded to.

                  •  Oh, really? (0+ / 0-)

                    The person I responded to said exactly that. Maybe you didn't, but I was responding to the statement I responded to.

                    Oh, I'm sure.

                    All right: here is that thread. You can either quote and link to the comment in which someone said ("exactly") "atheists are treated more poorly than GLBT people and therefore we should gain rights for atheists while we delay the quest for equal rights for GLBT people."

                    (Oddly enough, a few seconds' work with a browser text search function shows that neither the phrases "more poorly" or "gain rights" nor the words "delay" or "quest" were ever posted on that thread by anyone. So good luck finding the text that you claim was "said exactly.")

                    Link to that comment. If you don't, you admit with your silence that you are a liar without conscience.


                    I note that you falsely accused Kossack RandomActsOfReason of writing something very similar, prompting him to prove that you were lying:

                    RandomActs: The battle for equal rights is all about religion[.] The entire struggle against GLBT people is rooted in religious doctrine - just as the entire struggle against women's equality, against universal suffrage, against equality in general, are all rooted in religious conviction.

                    You can't separate religion from the battle for equal rights for GBLT people, that is absurd and self-defeating. It turns into a debate between liberal and conservative theists about WWJD.

                    WWJD is not a basic for US law.


                    You: So GLBT people should wait until religon [sic] is defeated? Really?

                    Opposition to equal rights for GLBT people is not only about religion.  Homophobia exists among atheists as well as religious people.  Or hadn't you noticed that?


                    Your logic is flawed [-] or, more accurately, you refuse to engage in logical discourse because you have an emotional stake in "defeating" me, rather than listening to me and responding thoughtfully.

                    No where did I state that GBLT people should "wait" for anything, much less the "defeat" of religion - which I also did not call for.

                    To deny the religious grounds that perpetuate discrimination against GBLT people is to deny reality. It suggests that you are more invested in rejecting criticism of religion than you are invested in GBLT rights.

                    What I actually have been arguing, is that ALL civil rights benefit when we push back against religiously-based discrimination; that ALL equality is furthered when we candidly engage in a discussion about the theology of discrimination; that, in the long run, humanity as a whole will benefit to the extent we are wiling to examine, rationally and honestly, whether religion itself, inherently and unavoidably, perpetuates separation, exclusion and discrimination.

                    You lied about RandomActs on that thread, and you're lying about someone now.

                    So put up or shut up.

                    •  This statement is false. (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Nightprowlkitty

                      You can't separate religion from the battle for equal rights for GBLT people, that is absurd and self-defeating.

                      It is the statement I challenged, because it says that gay rights cannot be won without "defeating religion."

                      I don't really care that you don't understand the consequences of what you are saying.  Maybe you should give it a shot sometime though.

                      Religion is not going to be defeated, by the way.  It's a concept, like terror.

                      You can either quote and link to the comment in which someone said ("exactly") "atheists are treated more poorly than GLBT people and therefore we should gain rights for atheists while we delay the quest for equal rights for GLBT people."

                      Open season on atheists in America

                      This is the last bigotry that's openly tolerated in America, and encouraged in the public sphere.

                      I hope they're aware

                      that social science and polling consistently show that Americans despise atheists considerably more than they do gays and lesbians.

                      I'm atheist and TG

                      quite honestly, I get more blank looks and slow backing away about being atheist.

                      It was that last comment I responded to.  The heterosexual male crossdresser who wrote does not experience the same approbation or treatment as most transgender people do.

                      At that point, you tried to tell me I haven't really been treated badly because I can use water fountains.

                      Now if you want to talk about stereotypes and how to defeat them, fine.  Otherwise I am going to ignore you.

                      •  So (0+ / 0-)

                        you admit you lied. Not a single one of those comments "said exactly" that "atheists are treated more poorly than GLBT people and therefore we should gain rights for atheists while we delay the quest for equal rights for GLBT people."

                        Q.E.D. You lied.


                        Nor did any of those comments remotely approach the statement you accused us of, as any honest reader would notice:

                        This is the last bigotry that's openly tolerated in America, and encouraged in the public sphere.

                        Which is not the same thing as asserting that "atheists are treated more poorly than GLBT people," just that atheophobia, unlike other bigotries, is "openly tolerated ... and encouraged." The fact that atheophobia is more tolerated in America than homophobia (and it is) does not, to an honest interpreter, imply that the former results in worse treatment than the latter.

                        I don't agree with that person's comment, but it's notably different from the statement you dishonestly claimed it ("exactly") was.


                        I hope they're aware that social science and polling consistently show that Americans despise atheists considerably more than they do gays and lesbians.

                        That's my comment. What I wrote is demonstrably true--and I linked to that same evidence the last time. (And it appears you ignored it before lying about what I said.) As those cites show, social science and polling do consistently show that Americans despise atheists considerably more than they do gays and lesbians. Do you have that much trouble accepting measurable reality?

                        Again, honest people note that my statement about the profuse social science and polling never mentioned (because that evidence does not measure) treatment--but you lied and said I had.

                        For the nth time, your dishonesty is laid bare for anyone to see.


                        I'm atheist and TG

                        quite honestly, I get more blank looks and slow backing away about being atheist.


                        It was that last comment I responded to. The heterosexual male crossdresser who wrote does not experience the same approbation or treatment as most transgender people do.

                        Wow. So you can't stand for this person's statement of personal experience because of your "More Transgender Than Thou" attitude. His experience doesn't count because you have it worse than he does. Your entire case is the Oppression Olympics; it's impossible to stop you from playing them. What utter hypocrisy you practice.


                        (Also, not to point out your... interesting... attempts to make use of the English language, but "approbation" means "approval." It appears that what you meant was "opprobrium," which happens to be a different word. I have to say I'm a bit taken aback that someone has hired you and your "cherry picking" (heh) command of the language to teach college students. Yikes.)


                        And again, if the statement from the "heterosexual male crossdresser" you are so contemptuous of really was "th[e] comment [that you] responded to," your lies are all the more disgusting. That man said nothing related to "atheists are treated more poorly than GLBT people and therefore we should gain rights for atheists while we delay the quest for equal rights for GLBT people." He just described his own life experience of confronting more atheophobia than transphobia. To misrepresent his sentiments the way you have (not to mention spit on him for having faced less "approbation"--heh--than you have) is well nigh unbelievable.


                        At that point, you tried to tell me I haven't really been treated badly because I can use water fountains.

                        Another utterly disgusting lie. I never said anything of the kind. You really do have no conscience.

                        Again--I demand you quote and link, put up or shut up. I say the accusation you stated above is a disgusting lie. Prove me wrong or continue slinking away like a coward.


                        You can't separate religion from the battle for equal rights for GBLT people, that is absurd and self-defeating.


                        It is the statement I challenged, because it says that gay rights cannot be won without "defeating religion."

                        Bullshit. Please learn to read. As RandomActsOfReligion showed you, "nowhere did [he] state that GBLT people should 'wait' for anything, much less the 'defeat' of religion - which [he] also did not call for." Nothing he wrote ever suggested or posited "defeating religion," a phrase which you have--in another bout of obscene dishonesty--placed inside quotation marks even though he never said it.


                        Moreover, the line that you scummily stuffed in our mouths was "atheists are treated more poorly than GLBT people and therefore we should gain rights for atheists while we delay the quest for equal rights for GLBT people." We've now seen that (1) no one actually stated the "treated more poorly" point despite your lie and (2) no one actually stated the "delay the quest" point despite your lie. Finally, though, no one stated "therefore," either--no one ever connected those ideas except you, the person who concocted all three parts of the sentence.


                        It is truly unbelievable to me how much lying you engage in. Why in the world should anyone debate anything with you, in light of your continual resort to outrageous and insulting lies?

                        Once again, in the waves of bigoted slanders you launch at your enemies, you spit on the efforts, intentions, and experiences of millions of people who work hard in support of GLBT rights--even though you can't be bothered to lift a finger to recognize atheists' rights, much less defend them.

                        You should be ashamed of yourself, but it appears you aren't capable of it.

                        •  Are I your enemy? (0+ / 0-)

                          Because you are not mine.  I do not choose to see people as enemies.  Why do you know and why did you then?

                          I'm not ashamed of myself because I believe you should have equal rights, probably more than you believe that I should.

                          You can characterize what I said as bigotry all you want, but it's becoming rather insane.

                          •  Sorry...cat "helping" me type. (0+ / 0-)

                            Why do you now and why did you then?

                          •  Really? (0+ / 0-)

                            Are I your enemy?

                            On these issues--hell yes. You demean and spit on innocent people. You sneer at atheists on the basis of your ignorance about who we are. And you lie, lie, lie, lie, and lie some more. Your behavior is utterly disgusting.

                            Then you top it with stuff like this:

                            I'm not ashamed of myself because I believe you should have equal rights, probably more than you believe that I should.

                            Wow. I'm afraid the only sufficient response to that is:  Fuck you. Fuck you and the self-absorbed horse you rode in on.

                            [A]s an atheist attorney who has spent most of his career fighting out very real legal disputes for very real GLB-and-very-much-Ts' rights, you can stick your ignorant and conceited "what have you done for me lately" attitude up your fucking ass.

                            In between cases fighting to end sodomy laws and preserve the custody, inheritance, and anti-discrimination rights of gays and lesbians, I fought in court for fifteen months on behalf of an MTF transsexual hounded out of her job for transitioning in the workplace. What the fuck have you ever done for atheists besides sneer and lie about who we are and what we believe?

                            You have an incredible amount of nerve, after all of the bigotry and lies you have run out, to claim that you're more committed to atheist rights than I am to GLBT rights. You don't even know what "atheist" means.

                            Bigotry, ignorance, hypocrisy, and lies, lies, lies. You are a disgusting person.

                          •  In your view... (0+ / 0-)

                            ...I am an atheist, dude.

                            What the hell are you talking about?

                            Have a good day, you hear?

                          •  And (0+ / 0-)

                            In your view I am an atheist, dude.

                            And Larry Craig, Ted Haggard, and Mark Foley (and John Paulk and a legion of "ex-gays") are gay. While also being raging homophobes.

                            So your point is....?

                          •  My point is that you have no idea... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Nightprowlkitty

                            ...what you are saying.  You are simply lashing out without any concept of of what you are saying or to whom.  

                            When people disagree with you, it's bad form to call them names.  Very bad form.  Disagreement does not define bigotry.  Actions do.

                          •  Indeed. (0+ / 0-)

                            Actions do.

                            Exactly. And I have documented you telling lie after lie after lie, pathologically dishonestly sliming and defaming innocent people. Your actions are disgusting, and they make very clear the ignorance and bigotry you labor under.

                          •  That's really quite enough. (0+ / 0-)

                            Your comments are ridiculous.  If you disagree with Robyn that's one thing.  To say that because she interprets things differently makes her a liar who is defaming people is just plain bullshit.

                            The only thing you have documented is that you don't know how to have dialogue and merely wish to hurl stones.  And all you have accomplished is to embarrass yourself.

                          •  "Interprets things differently"? (0+ / 0-)

                            This woman has repeatedly posted flat lies about what her opponents had written, in attempt to slime people who disagree with her.

                            She has been told repeatedly that the words she is shoving in innocent people's mouths are not in fact what we have argued nor what we believe. This has done nothing whatsoever to deter her from continuing to post lies about her opponents.


                            To say that because she interprets things differently makes her a liar....

                            No. This is not a matter of "interpretation." rserven has alleged that her opponents have "said exactly" what she claims we said. So when she accuses RandomActsOfReason of stating that "gay rights cannot be won without 'defeating religion,'" that is a disgusting lie--first, because RandomActs never argued anything of the kind, and second, because rserven put the words "defeating religion" in quotation marks even though RandomActs never used those words. Those are not "interpretations," they are demonstrable lies. rserven has libeled RandomActs.

                            As a further example, rserven claimed that I "tried to tell [her she] ha[s]n't really been treated badly because [she] can use water fountains." This, again, is a disgusting lie. I have never said anything of the kind. In that statement, rserven libeled me.


                            The only thing you have documented is that you don't know how to have dialogue and merely wish to hurl stones.

                            Hardly. On this thread alone I have shown numerous explicit lies that rserven has posted--each of which directly misrepresents the reality of statements that other people, including me, have made. She has used those lies to defame and malign us--for reasons that align very closely with a common type of bigotry against a despised minority. Whether you are willing to see it or not, rserven has engaged in a stunning run of bigoted dishonesty.

                            Making excuses for her misconduct, meanwhile, speaks rather poorly for you.

                          •  Nonsense. (0+ / 0-)

                            You sound like a ten year old who has swallowed a dictionary.

                            You have proved nothing.

                            You have, however, hurled insult after insult and acted as though you were trying a case in court.

                            And very badly at that.

                            The only lies you have shown are the ones you have manufactured out of thin air and lodged in your brain.  I am not interested in your evidentiary linkages.  You clearly don't know how to have a conversation and instead indulge overly in aggression -- and that is clear from comments in your recent diary as well, to others.

                            At least she has an interpretation.  All you have is aggression and its attendant name calling.

                            Libel.  Yeah, right.  Again, you are embarrassing yourself.

                          •  How cute. (0+ / 0-)

                            You have, however, hurled insult after insult and acted as though you were trying a case in court.

                            I imagine that's how an evidentiary hearing would look to someone doggedly unwilling to admit the truth that's right in front of his/her face.

                            I try "case[s] in court" several times a year. rserven's lies are not substantially different than run-of-the-mill misrepresentations at issue in civil litigation all the time. She's just not very good at covering them up.

                            And whining that the lawyer who's refuting you at every turn "sound[s] like a ten year old" doesn't tend to go over well with judges. Non-corrupt ones, anyway.


                            Libel.  Yeah, right.

                            Yes, libel. Is that a new word to you? Do you need me to explain what it means, or what the elements of such a claim are?


                            The only lies you have shown are the ones you have manufactured out of thin air and lodged in your brain.

                            All right; you have no interest in an honest appraisal of rserven's misdeeds. I have documented numerous specific false statements of fact that rserven has posted. You are entitled to all of the denial of reality you'd like. But I have merely called a spade a spade, hard as that appears to be for you to accept.

                          •  Yeah. (0+ / 0-)

                            I read your little bio on your page.  I figured you were a lawyer.

                            Do you have a secretary, by any chance?  I mean a good secretary?

                            Well if you do, please tell her from me that she has done a terrible job of keeping you human.

                            If you do have a secretary, she'll know what I mean.

                            If you don't, well that explains a lot.

                          •  P.S.: (0+ / 0-)

                            Dear Rieux,

                            This is not a court of law.  This is a conversation.

                            Sincerely,
                            Nightprowlkitty

                            cc:  Daily Kos

                          •  P.P.S.: (0+ / 0-)

                            Do you also say to your adversaries in court "fuck you fuck you fuck you?" and all the other slimy words you used in your comments, like "pathological?"

                            Would a judge say nothing about that?

                            Or do you actually treat the opposing side with a modicum of civility, as opposed to how you've treated Robyn on this thread?

                          •  Heh. (0+ / 0-)

                            This is not a court of law.  This is a conversation.

                            Actually, it's an argument. And you have entirely refused to pay attention to the evidence. Your loss.


                            Do you also say to your adversaries in court "fuck you fuck you fuck you?"

                            No, that hasn't happened yet. Of course, in court there's a judge, and any counsel who told the number of baldfaced lies that rserven has here and in the previous thread would have been cooling her heels overnight in jail for contempt before matters got there. (Lawyers have an ethical duty of candor to the tribunal. rserven observes no ethical duty of honesty--quite possibly to anyone, but demonstrably to certain despised minorities. It makes for a rather uneven exchange when one side is committed to the truth and the other is willing to lie constantly. Court is somewhat different, thankfully.)

                            The "fuck you" passages were merely an utterly appropriate response to the following disgusting declaration from rserven:

                            I'm not ashamed of myself because I believe you should have equal rights, probably more than you believe that I should.

                            In light of the facts that (a) I have spent most of my career in court defending the rights of gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgendered persons and (b) rserven does not even know what an "atheist" is (and indeed has spent two long discussion threads repeatedly lying about and sneering at us), the above-quoted passage is utterly disgusting. I have devoted much of my professional life to the cause of GLBT rights. rserven has openly spit on the cause of atheist rights. There is no comparison, and "fuck you" is a perfectly valid response to her attempt to insult me and aggrandize herself.

                            You are welcome to ignore all of this and pretend rserven is a pristine angel, overwhelming evidence be damned--but I am not responsible for your delusions.


                            I have produced profuse evidence of rserven's rampant dishonesty. Your entire response has amounted to "nuh-uhhhhh."

                            Which is meaningless. Do you actually have something of substance to say?

                          •  Rieux. (0+ / 0-)

                            This isn't a court of law.  Try to get that through your head.  You cannot indict Robyn as much as you seem to be chomping at the bit to do so.

                            As I can see from your response, you most likely do treat the other side with a modicum of civility.

                            There is a professional code for lawyers, have you ever read it?  It covers how you conduct yourself even off of work.

                            When you enter the public square, you don't get to indict anyone, charge them, find them guilty by what ever "evidence" you may choose to pull out of your ass in a fit of aggression.

                            No, you are not having an argument, not with that abusive language.  You are merely indulging in aggression.

                            You are guilty as charged!

                            LOL

                          •  Heh again. (0+ / 0-)

                            This isn't a court of law.

                            No, but evidence matters--to people who are interested in reality, anyway. Your interests appear to lie elsewhere.


                            As I can see from your response, you most likely do treat the other side with a modicum of civility.

                            Er--thanks?


                            There is a professional code for lawyers, have you ever read it?

                            I just wrote a comment that cited an attorney's duty of candor to the tribunal. Guess where that comes from?


                            It covers how you conduct yourself even off of work.

                            Sure. If rserven were a practicing attorney, her libelous conduct could amount to a real problem with her local bar authorities.

                            I don't think she's an attorney, though. More's the pity.


                            When you enter the public square, you don't get to indict anyone....

                            Oooh... swing-and-a-miss. Indictment is a criminal proceeding. Libel is civil. And any citizen (among others) does indeed have the right to file a civil suit. Nice try.


                            much as you seem to be chomping at the bit to do so.

                            Ouch: maybe you need a ten-year-old with a dictionary. That ten-year-old might well be literate enough to recognize that it's champing, not "chomping." (Do you teach at rserven's college?)


                            Anyway--again: these are all irrelevancies. I have produced overwhelming evidence of rserven's lies. Your entire response has amounted to nuh-uh...; you have produced no substantive reply whatsoever. So I ask again: do you actually have something of substance to say, or are you just going to continue your pointless and evidence-free whining?

                          •  Just in case another view of this would be (0+ / 0-)

                            helpful...

                            You have your head epically far up your ass.

                          •  You prefer (0+ / 0-)

                            pathologically lying bigots, I presume?

                            You guys are cute. Is this a tag-team substance-free whining session, or what?

                            Or do you have anything of substance to say about rserven's constant lies about her opponents' statements?

                          •  I have one thing to add (0+ / 0-)

                            You have just proved again that it is impossible to read closely and correctly.....with your head epically far up your ass.

                          •  Thanks ... (0+ / 0-)

                            ... I always thought it was chomping.  Good to know the correct term.

                            Rieux, you have not proven that Robyn is a pathological liar, nor that she "sneers," or that she is a bigot.  You have proven nothing at all.  Especially libel.

                            It's sad that you have written on the code and don't know how to apply it to your own behavior.

                            Now you are reduced to parsing words with me.

                            You are an embarrassment.

                            Cheers.

                          •  P.S.: (0+ / 0-)

                            Just to be complete, this is also not a civil court and you cannot file either criminal or civil suit here.

                            If you can't treat a poster in the public square with the minimum civility you'd treat a criminal in a court of law then you are the one with the problem.

                            You are young and overly aggressive.  I hope one day you remember what I'm saying.

                          •  NPK is tagged in! (0+ / 0-)

                            Rieux, you have not proven that Robyn is a pathological liar, nor that she "sneers," or that she is a bigot.

                            Yeah, I heard your nuh-uhhhhh the first time. But my question was whether you had anything of substance to say. I've quoted, cited, and linked overwhelming evidence. Nuh-uhhhhh is not actually a response to that.


                            If you can't treat a poster in the public square with the minimum civility....

                            Oh, I treated rserven with far more civility than she, as it turns out, deserved--back at the beginning of our exchange. But then she lied about me and other atheists and what we were saying. And then she did it again. And then she did it several more times, including in the original diary here. That you are a fan of a serial liar does not actually change those facts.

                            Actions have consequences; for example, bigotry and dishonesty sometimes are called by their right names. You don't seem to be interested in facing the reality of the situation--whining about my lack of "civility" is apparently a more pressing need for you--but again, that's not my problem.

                            You still have had nothing substantive to say here. Think that'll ever come?

                          •  Eh. (0+ / 0-)

                            Substance to an opinion on someone's character which was formed by aggression and misinterpretation?

                            I know Robyn and have known her for a long time - have also read her work, which has great integrity.  Your characterization both of her and what she's trying to say is unrecognizable and again shows only your own aggression.

                            Whatever her interpretation, whether you agree or diagree, to call it pathological lying and claim you have proven that, is nonsensical.  That would entail you knowing her character, knowing her personally, and it is abundantly clear you don't.  So your analysis of her motivations is off the charts.

                            Yes.  Actions have consequences, Rieux.  You don't get to smear someone's character (as opposed to their words) without being called on it, you don't get to treat someone in the public square in a lesser fashion than you'd treat a common criminal in court and you don't get to proclaim yourself right when you are not.

                            In disagreement you do not have the right to say foul things about another person.  I look at actions -- I saw no name calling from Robyn.  Only from you.

                            Again, this is not a court of law.  And your behavior has been abominable.

                            You also don't know me.  I hold no high regard for faux civility.  I'm speaking of basic discourse here, something you have failed in egregiously.

                            I'll let you have the last word, because you need to have that.  I hope in the future you leave the aggression at work where it belongs.

                          •  So long. (0+ / 0-)

                            Substance to an opinion on someone's character which was formed by aggression and misinterpretation?

                            No, substance as in the overwhelming evidence I have provided (or, on your end, contrary evidence or reasoning from the materials already produced) that rserven has repeatedly, knowingly, and brutally lied about the positions and statements of innocent people. I have provided profuse evidence that these events has taken place. You have provided nuh-uhhhh. The former is substantive; the latter is not.


                            I know Robyn and have known her for a long time....

                            How entirely unsurprising. This delivers a serious blow to your credibility as an impartial arbiter of this dispute. Rather than address the facts of this matter--the overwhelming evidence, once again, that I have produced--you merely cling to dogmatic certainty that rserven is just swell. Regardless of how much nasty shit I demonstrate that she has launched at innocent people, you'll continue to blithely claim that she's spotless. You're not honestly weighing the issue at all.


                            [Y]our behavior has been abominable.

                            Sure. I said unkind things about your buddy. And then I backed them up, quoting chapter-and-verse of her repeated disgusting lies, again and again and again. All for naught, here--you apparently don't care.

                            Once again, you've shown nothing but your own bias and unwillingness to address the reality of what your friend has done. That is not my problem.

                          •  It's not worth it, npk. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Nightprowlkitty

                            This guy doesn't understand that when a statement is made, another person gets to tie that together with other statements, implications, facts and given assumptions in order to form conclusions from them.  He didn't like the fact that I can do that rapidly and report that as the meaning of what someone wrote.  Critical thinking we call it in the logic biz.

                            He became virulently abusing when I told him that atheism was a belief.  That's what this is really all about.  And it's not worth the trouble.

                          •  As if. (0+ / 0-)

                            when a statement is made, another person gets to tie that together with other statements, implications, facts and given assumptions in order to form conclusions from them.

                            Aha. "[T]ogether with other statements, implications, facts and given assumptions." What a self-serving bullshit excuse for your practice of making up any defamatory assertion you'd like and shoving it in your opponents' mouths. The baseless "implications" you draw, the false "facts" you think you know, and the "given assumptions" you absurdly proceed from are simply the stuff that your virulent prejudice is made of. Sorry, but the roots of your bigotry do not provide you with a license to lie.

                            When you assert that your opponents have "said exactly" various statements, you have abandoned any pretense of "other statements, implications, facts and given assumptions." When you claim that specific statements your opponents have made substantiate your allegations... but then your claims are decisively disproved, it becomes clear that your vague references to "other statements, implications, facts and given assumptions" are merely the last desperate refuge of a serial liar.


                            He didn't like the fact that I can do that rapidly and report that as the meaning of what someone wrote.

                            Oh, yeah, you're a whiz, all right. You can combine your own bigotry with mangled language from an innocent person's comment and churn out defamatory lies impressively "rapidly." I take your point: you are not a slow bigot.


                            He became virulently abusing when I told him that atheism was a belief.

                            First, you're lying again. Your smug insistence that atheism is a belief merely shows your ignorance of and disrespect for a despised minority--but that's run-of-the-mill in the United States. No, what sets you apart--and what set me off--are your constant lies, which deserve a response that might well, to the average serial liar, feel like "abus[e]." I doubt that many liars enjoy having their behavior exposed.


                            Finally--"abusing"? "Abusing"? The word, Madam, is abusive. If you're going to insult me, could you at least use the language properly?

                            After "cherry picking," "approbation," and "abusing," I guess your students should be grateful that you teach them math and not English composition. Though, as the spouse of a math professor who writes in English exceedingly well, I can't say that you're giving the ol' profession much reason to be proud of your language skills.

                          •  I was at work for 12 hours today... (0+ / 0-)

                            ...Mr. Asshole.  Just stuff it.

                            Finally--"abusing"? "Abusing"? The word, Madam, is abusive. If you're going to insult me, could you at least use the language properly?

                          •  Yeah. (0+ / 0-)

                            Just stuff it.

                            Gladly. But you and your penchant for defamation need to go first.

                          •  Well ... (0+ / 0-)

                            ... I looked at some of his other comments to posters who disagree with him.

                            Seems he knows no other form of discourse when disagreement arises than aggressive (and abusive) attack.

                            I don't think he can even grasp what you're saying here, given that narrow view.

                            I think some of the objections you're getting are that you called out people in a way they found troubling.  I have no problem with that - it's always a risk when you refer to what others in the community say.  And conversation can be had about that.

                            But this kind of attack on you and your character is just out of line.  Period.

                      •  Dammit (0+ / 0-)

                        The heterosexual male crossdresser who wrote does not experience the same approbation or treatment as most transgender people do.

                        Robyn, that is not fair, because I acknowledged in that thread that someone who is transitioning or has transitioned would have it a lot tougher than I do. I acknowledged that. For you to pull this "more Tranny than thou" shit on me in that context is grossly unfair, and unworthy of you.

                        "I used to have goals. They were *evil* goals, but they were *goals*."--Dr. Doofenschmirtz

                        by ChurchofBruce on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 12:20:41 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  I was explaining why I commented when I did. (0+ / 0-)

                          You had not, at the time I commented, made that acknowledgment.  You had said this:

                          I'm atheist and TG

                          quite honestly, I get more blank looks and slow backing away about being atheist.

                          •  I have absolutely no problem (0+ / 0-)

                            with anything you said during that thread.

                            I have a problem with you throwing part of the thread in my face here, after the fact, when you're in a fight with someone else entirely.

                            "I used to have goals. They were *evil* goals, but they were *goals*."--Dr. Doofenschmirtz

                            by ChurchofBruce on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 04:49:20 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I certainly didn't say anything about... (0+ / 0-)

                            ...more tranny than thou."  I have defended CDs in trans-wars for quite some time.

                            I tried living as a heterosexual male crossdresser for a couple of decades.  I don't see anything wrong with that.  But I certainly understood that life then was not as dangerous as it became after I transitioned.

                          •  I also understand (0+ / 0-)

                            that it's more dangerous for people who are/have transitioned. I said my original comment purely about me (and it's true) but later acknowledged that it's more dangerous for transitioning people. I had absolutely no problem, again, for anything you said in that thread, for your response to my original comment, any of it.

                            Your comment here in a fight with someone other than me was dismissive and unfair. You can't understand that? You can't understand that dragging me into this fight with one comment out of many that I made (and, I thought, cordially) in another thread could be unfair? You can't understand that dismissing that one comment as "hetero male crossdresser" without the context of the whole discussion could be considered insulting?

                            I enjoy talking with you. I haven't ever sensed that condescending attitude when we were talking directly (well, as directly as it gets on the internet.) Which is why I have trouble understanding why'd you do it to me when I wasn't even here.

                            "I used to have goals. They were *evil* goals, but they were *goals*."--Dr. Doofenschmirtz

                            by ChurchofBruce on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 06:23:41 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I stopped fighting this guy days ago. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            ChurchofBruce

                            I tried one explanation.  It proved worthless.  Apparently it pissed you off.  I'll apologize for that.

                            Your comment was the original comment I responded to, which is the only reason I selected it.  

                          •  Accepted, and thank you n/t (0+ / 0-)

                            "I used to have goals. They were *evil* goals, but they were *goals*."--Dr. Doofenschmirtz

                            by ChurchofBruce on Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 10:37:32 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

    •  Here's my simple-minded approach: (7+ / 0-)

      When I meet someone from a group I have little or no prior experience with, I consciously remind myself that they are unique... just like everyone else :)

    •  Yup... (6+ / 0-)

      Really lame to try to make it a fight between the two.  Both groups are heavily discriminated against...why do some people need to make it a competition?

      I am a heterosexual male who has been fighting for equality for GLBT people for years.  It would be nice to get the same respect in return, instead of competition over who has it worse.  Ridiculous.  Especially considering atheists and GLBT groups tend to have so much in common, and the #1 enemy of homosexuals are fanatical religious folks.

  •  I am sorry there weren't more people (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tnichlsn, sberel, rserven

    when you spent your time and energy to be there, but I will hope in both groups that a few learned a great deal and will pass that on to others and that is what makes it worth while.

    Best wishes and I hope you have a good vacation time when it finally gets here. :)

    I do enjoy your art work...so vibrant...and your poems...so thought provoking.

    {{{{{{HUGS}}}}}}

    Join us at Bookflurries: Bookchat on Wednesday nights 8:00 PM EST

    by cfk on Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 08:43:58 PM PST

  •  Hi rserven, sorry to show up so late here, great (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sberel, rserven

    diary as always. My migraines are wreaking havoc with my entire life at the moment so I folded early this evening. I guess it's too late to open the discussion I started this morning in the WGLB diary on whether it should be part of the GLBT civil rights battle, what procedures you had to go through to get to the sexual orientation you currently find yourself in and whether the entire pre-surgery to reassignment process should be categorized within the sexual orientation civil rights battle framework... My perspective is that if your anatomy places you in a group of folks with functioning vaginas, surgically constructed or genetically assigned, and you are in an exclusively receptive relationship with a male, your battle, if you have one, is with societies perception of your sexuality rather than your sexual orientation. Does that statement even make sense? If not, sorry, it's 2:30 AM and I'm still in zombie mode, with a new migraine and my usual 4 hours sleep a night catching up with me... Please give me a heads up next time you dedicate a diary to such basic questions here. thanks,
    Terry

    Support democracy at home and abroad, join the ACLU & Amnesty International http://www.aclu.org and http://takeaction.amnestyusa.org Your voice is needed!

    by tnichlsn on Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 11:28:36 PM PST

    •  The majority of transfolk... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      tnichlsn, sberel, Marja E

      ...are gay lesbian or bisexual people either before or after any surgical procedures.  While heterosexual people who remain straight after surgery certainly exist, it is my observation that they tend not to identify as being part of the of the GLBT community after surgery.  Indeed, they tend to "woodwork," as we call it, and not even identify as being transsexual any longer.

      Problem encountered, problem solved, move on with one's life.  Their dating pool is people who are not part of the GLBT community, except in the rare cases when both members of the relationship are transsexual.

      Most out transfolk consider themselves part of the GLBT community because they are also either G, L, or B...or their partners identify that way.  So it's important to realize that the T is not exclusive, in general of the other categories.

      We fight for inclusion of "gender identity" along with sexual orientation because we understand that femmy gays and butch women will not be protected simply because they are G, L, or B...that as long as gender identity is not protected, there will be a loophole through which discrimination will still occur.

      •  thanks rserven, I appreciate you describing (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sberel, rserven

        the window you see this issue from.

        Support democracy at home and abroad, join the ACLU & Amnesty International http://www.aclu.org and http://takeaction.amnestyusa.org Your voice is needed!

        by tnichlsn on Sat Feb 28, 2009 at 05:45:38 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Interesting. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          tnichlsn, rserven

          I am now wondering whether there is a male/female difference in the way one sees things.

          The link I (a female) see about gender identity and sexual orientation is that both are percieved by the general society as gender transgression.  

          GLBT persons, all, trans people - without regard to their sexual orientation - are punished by the hetero-normative society for violating gender norms.

          So to me, you can't lop a piece off (say, heterosexual transgender people).  It doesn't make sense, because the point is to address and change a deep underlying pressure - the pressure to make people adhere to appropriate gender norms.  It's my thinking that's the most effective knot to try to loosen.

          I was going to recommend a book, and I find it's downloadable online!

          Homophobia: a weapon of sexism Suzanne Pharr.

          be ready at any moment to give up what you are for what you might become. WEB DuBois

          by sberel on Sat Feb 28, 2009 at 11:26:54 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I sort of instigated part of the afterword... (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            tnichlsn, sberel

            ...to that book.  Suzanne became a friend.

            Or there’s the transsexual question: can one be born a male, transition through hormones and surgery to femaleness, and be a lesbian? What about those who lived their lives successfully as men with the attendant male privilege before making this change?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site