Wednesday, June 24, 2009

Protecting the Transgendered, Normalizing Deviancy?

At the New York Times, "New Protections for Transgender Federal Workers."

I can't help thinking how much the moral universe would be improved if President Obama decided to put a fraction of the effort protecting unborn children as he does for protecting transgendered workers ...

Pam's House Blend has a post on this, but Hilzoy really captures the postmodern zeitgeist:

Discrimination against transmen and transwomen is just wrong, and it's pervasive. Transitioning to a different gender is a tough enough process without worrying about whether you're going to lose your job as a result. And people can be pretty antediluvian about these things: they freak out about who gets to use what bathroom, etc., etc., ad nauseam.
You think?

Here's Reliapundit, who hearts him some capitals, "
OBAMA'S AMORAL GRAMSCIAN TRANSGENDER AGENDA MOVING FORWARD":

OBAMA IS PUTTING US ON A SLIPPERY SLOPE. (YES: NORMALIZING DEVIANCY IS A SLIPPERY SLOPE!)

IMMORAL AND AMORAL LEADERS USUALLY DO.

UNTIL TODAY. OBAMA HAD HARSHER THINGS TO SAY ABOUT WATER-BOARDING THAN ABOUT IRAN'S MURDERING UNARMED DEMONSTRATORS.

OBAMA DEMANDS ISRAEL STOPS ALL BUILDING IN ALL SETTLEMENTS, BUT MERELY POLITELY ASKS ABBAS TO TONE DOWN THE ANTISEMITIC RHETORIC IN THE PALI PRESS AND SCHOOLS.

THESE AREN'T "DOUBLE STANDARDS"; THEY'RE "NO STANDARDS" OR "BAD STANDARDS" OR "UPSIDE-DOWN STANDARDS".
Hat Tip: Memeorandum.

10 comments:

RaDena said...

Reliapundit is right. I believed that Obama was amoral long before the election and I wish he would prove to those of us who think so that we're wrong. You're right too, but even if a miracle occurred and suddenly Obama saw abortion as being wrong, I doubt he'd change his public stance on it because he doesn't want to anger his liberal supporters. But what about Americans who are pro-life?

According to Gallup " A new Gallup Poll, conducted May 7-10, finds 51% of Americans calling themselves "pro-life" on the issue of abortion and 42% "pro-choice." This is the first time a majority of U.S. adults have identified themselves as pro-life since Gallup began asking this question in 1995." That's good, but do they all vote and if they do, do they believe abortion a big enough cause to vote against someone? Or are the majority of pro-life Americans even aware of Obama being for partial-birth abortion?

Donald Douglas said...

Thanks RaDena!

I think that majority, on abortion and other issues, will grow.

Anonymous said...

I am transgender and you have no idea the hell I've gone through just to be myself. I'm sorry to tell you it's not deviancy, it's a medical condition. I would rather have been born just like everybody else. I've been this way since my earliest memories. It's not just having to align your body and mind that's hell, it's the hatred from others as well.

repsac3 said...

The anonymous comment above, suggesting that being transgendered is a nature thing, moreso than a nurture thing (or a choice, for that matter), reminded me of your earlier post on the subject, discussing how the medical profession & parents are treating transgendered children...

Your comment accusing me of promoting "wild transgendered relativism" (a comment made for reasons I still don't understand, as I think I was pretty evenhanded at that post, saying that I sympathized with all of the parents & kids involved) is still listed among my favorite "Douglasisms"...

DFS said...

I saw some medical show a while ago about a young person who actually had a genetic deformity where they actually had extra chromosomes. In these very rare cases I can see that it is a medical condition. And these people should have our support.

However, I have no reason to believe the majority of transgendered actually have physical conditions that can be shown through DNA analysis. It's far more likely there is psychological issues that need to be dealt with. I believe physically altering them is a huge disservice and doesn't address the psychological issues.

JBW said...

Anon, it's obvious that you are choosing to be transgendered and thus altering your body at your own whim. Please stop doing so because it's making Don freak out about using the bathroom at work.

Your lack of sensitivity over his uncomfortableness is appalling. The man has a right to pee in comfort, and your transformation is making it go back up his penis. Shame on you and your deviant ways.

repsac3 said...

DFS:

I don't know whether you followed that link in my last comment back to the original article that Dr. Douglas wrote about back in November (A Boy's Life - The Atlantic
(November 2008)
, in case not), but it discusses young children who are not the same gender in their head as they are based on their body.

Is the mind (not the brain, but the mind) different, depending on gender? Are the differences in interests, emotions, penchant for certain behaviors between boys and girls all the result of socialization, or is one born with certain aptitudes for some things and not for others, based on gender? And if the mind does contain "gender," and if, as you note God/Mama Nature/biology can screw up in some ways, why not this one?

Now, I don't know whether the gender of one's mind can be seen--any more that one's innate talent for music or languages can be seen--but I believe that it exists, regardless, and I believe that some people can be born with a mind/body mismatch.

The question after that (& the one explored in that article) is, if one is going to try and synch up mind and body, which should they change? Is changing one better than the other? Why? What makes you you; what you look like on the outside, or who you know/believe you are inside?

I just don't think it's as black and white simple as some would prefer it to be...

LFC said...

Reliapundit's use of "Gramscian" to qualify "Obama's transgender agenda" is one of the funniest things I've seen in a long time. (Not that Reliapundit, whoever he is, was trying to be funny; it just is funny b/c it's so ludicrous.)

DFS said...

repsac3:

I went back and read the article. Nothing in it offered me anything to dissuade me from my earlier observations. Indeed, it actually reinforced my conclusions. As revealed in the article, playing with the physical bodies of children based on the latest theories is dangerous.

There's no indication of what else is going on in those people's lives that affects them, so its certainly difficult to attribute their problems to mind/body disconnects. If there's physical evidence that suggests that there really is a hormonal problem (and not just a claim as was seemingly suggested by one of speakers at the transgender conference), then that should certainly be addressed.

The more screwed up society becomes, the even more screwed up the solutions become.

repsac3 said...

I'm not nearly as sure as you that one's body should take precedence over one's mind in these situations, or that one must present visible physical anomalies to have legitimate issues--and since there is seemingly reliable medical opinions supporting either "matching the mind to the body" via therapy, and "matching the body to the mind", via surgery (in adulthood) theories, I think it should be up to the parents and the kids to decide, without much input from outside observers with political axes to grind--but I appreciate that you read the piece & got back to me, anyway...