DaddySatyr
Posts: 9381
Joined: 8/29/2011 From: Pittston, Pennsyltucky Status: offline
|
I think there's a broader issue here, though. I loved what Kaliko had to say (Hell, I think she's the bees' knees ) and I agree pretty much straight down the line. I do have a fear, though. While I am not so blind as to think that those born trans-gendered (we used to say "Hermaphrodite" but I'm told that isn't politically correct, anymore) should not be a gender unto themselves, I have always believed that it is kind of arrogant/narcissistic/I can't think of the right word for someone to say: "I was born a certain gender but I shouldn't have been. Nature/God/Genetics/Biology made a mistake." I have a really hard time with that. Someone who is born obviously one gender in a physical sense is allowed to make any choice they wish but, shouldn't that choice be based upon not only how they feel but upon some amount of life experience? Homosexuals used to argue: "With the way the world hates us, why would anyone choose to be this way?" and it was an effective argument but those arguments usually came from people that were old enough to shave. They had experienced some of the bias and hatred and knew (as much as anyone can be sure of their future) what they were getting themselves into. We're being asked to accept the decision of a seven year old about a huge life choice . I can't help but wonder how old Jeffrey Dahmer was when he tortured and killed his first animal but, I think I remember he was pretty young. Should we have indulged that? Surely, he had made a choice? Now, to the real meat of this issue (and I apologize for the partial hijack): I am constantly off on Quixotic crusade for equality. I want it more than I want my 30 oz. cup of soda in the morning but I like the fact that men and ladies are different . I genuinely enjoy the fact that because of these differences we have different life experiences and that when we "team up", we get input from both sides. After all, we call it a partnership for a reason. I was never for the Boy Scouts being forced to accept girls. Again, the whole "difference" thing but, since no one consulted me about it and it seems to have happened, absent my blessing, it would be incredibly duplicitous for the Girl Scouts to not allow boys into their fold. That doesn't mean that duplicity doesn't occur. I'm old enough to remember NOW screaming about how they wanted females to really be soldiers, sailors, marines, and air force and when, the issue came up (under President Carter) about women then serving as infantry troops, the NOW gals were the first ones to voice protest. I guess it kind of comes down to integrity. If a person supported the right of a girl to join the Boy Scouts, they would have to support the right of this boy to join the Girl Scouts or their opinion on either subject has no merit or credence. Peace and comfort, Michael ETA: Maybe we should have a third scouting organization? Maybe one where they are just "Scouts" and we could go back to having "Boy Scouts" for those that wish that experience and Girl Scouts for those that prefer those activities?
< Message edited by DaddySatyr -- 12/23/2011 6:02:40 AM >
_____________________________
A Stone in My Shoe Screen captures (and pissing on shadows) still RULE! Ya feel me? "For that which I love, I will do horrible things"
|