Steve Stanton, the city manager of Largo, Florida, is getting a sex change operation. That news is grounds for firing him. Injust as that is (but so damned typical), I was amused by this remark:
“If Jesus was here tonight, I can guarantee you he’d want him terminated,” said Pastor Ron Saunders of Largo’s Lighthouse Baptist Church. “Make no mistake about it.”
It’s a fascinating comment. We have an idealistic image of Jesus representing the weak and downtrodden, the oppressed minorities, of preaching tolerance and inclusion, and Pastor Ron Saunders is exactly the opposite … and at the same time, he isn’t some weird Christian renegade, he’s actually fairly representative of the attitudes of the American religious towards sexual diversity. On one level, you feel a provocative tension between the ideal and the real when someone like this pastor preaches his intolerance.
At the same time, though, you’ve got to figure that he’s probably right. Jesus was a provincial rabble-rouser and religious fanatic, all wrapped up in ancient Jewish law and custom. Give him a tour of the 21st century, and he’d probably freak out and wonder where his people had gone so wrong; introduce him to the idea of transexual surgery, and he’d probably go all Fred Phelps on you. Or maybe not; who knows, the man has been dead for almost 2000 years.
The real problem, perhaps, is when one lets one’s imagined vision of a long-dead individual, known only indirectly, be a moral guide. It’s a recipe for unmooring one’s ethics from anything real, allowing the imagination or obsolete tradition to be your sole moral compass. It seems to me that if Stanton has a history of competence and good service to the city (and apparently he does, having been manager for 14 years, and having no recent policy errors to trigger a firing, just this one personal and professionally irrelevant decision), then that should be the defining factor in the the city council’s decision, not whether he has testicles or not.
Oh, but of course: the Bible has a very specific proscription against people like Stanton. Who needs a moral compass when you’ve got the words of antique priests?
Maybe the most appropriate response to such silliness is to say, “Well, Jesus is not here right now, so can’t speak for himself.” But, I am forgetting that Jesus and God and the Founding Father and whoever’s name is being invoked always agree with the speaker.
“If Jesus was here tonight” does not even make theological sense. Jesus is God and God is with us at all times, even at meetings, and nothing whatever happens without God’s permission, even sex change surgery.
If Jesus were here tonight? He may very well end up there. Jesus’s are popping up all over the place lately just check out http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/04/03/obama.as.jesus.ap/index.html
Thank you eunuch priests of Attis, Adonis and Tanit. Your competition with the Hebrew Yahweh worshippers is still effecting us today.
The whole OT reads quite a bit different if you translate “qadesh’ as the correct “temple prostitute” instead of “homosexual”.
This thread brings us to last month’s word: American Orthodox.
http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/index.jhtml?ml_video=78943
A gem of Colbert’s, one of his good ones.
Give him a tour of the 21st century, and he’d probably freak out and wonder where his people had gone so wrong;
His followers wouldn’t even recognize him. Whatever else he was, he was almost certainly a rebel and anti-establishment. I have to believe that if he were walking on the earth today, he’d take one look at the commercialism of religion, the expensive gaudy hurches, the hypocrisy of the rich who claim to be christians, etc, and say, “No! This is not what I meant at all!” Very few of his followers could actually live the lifestyle he (supposedly) advocated. And.. he’d be a democrat for sure.
Didn’t the legalistic religious establishment of the time already successfully terminate him?
That is, assuming he existed at all except as Paul’s semifictional rehashing of the Osiris myth.
I have a friend who was raised in Largo. He’s gay so I asked him recently what he thought about his hometown getting in the news for something as ridiculous as this. He said it was pretty typical. And he definitely has a point.
Just a couple of years ago, my sister, who is a librarian, created a fracas across the bay in Tampa when she had the temerity to create a display of books which dealt with homosexuality up in her library. The wackos in Hillsborough County quickly passed an ordinance forbidding the display of books that might addle the minds of impressionable youths.
It’s hard to believe sometimes that the Tampa Bay area is in the same state as gay-friendly Miami Beach and Key West.
Ya gotta love all the weasling and waffling at that site you linked to, PZ. And as for the eunuchs, well, the Romans certainly used them in government. Some of the most ruthless generals and government officials were eunuchs. They were probably hated, but more for their ruthlessness than their lack of equipment.
me and my spouse were discussing this the other day. between ourselves, we concluded that Florida is the trailer park of the nation — news out of that state seems to be disproportionately pointless, silly, and usually petty-minded drama of this sort.
The god fearing citizens of Largo, Fl. That’s the same place where a homeowners’ association has been trying to kick a family out of this retirement community because a toddler is living with his grandparents while the child’s mother tries to straighten herself out. http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/F/FL_TODDLER_LAWSUIT_FLOL-?SITE=FLTAM&SECTION=US Nice folks there. The grandparents have the house on the market, but can’t sell. (Maybe people know what it’s like to live in Largo.)
When I blogged on this … well … a while ago, I got a comment from Dr. Jillian Todd Weiss, a professor of law and transgender workplace diversity consultant, who has a detailed discussion of the legal issues surrounding Stanton’s firing at her site.
http://jweissdiary.blogspot.com/2007/03/law-covering-susan-stanton-city-manager.html
There is no more despised group, more openly discriminated against, and more in need of the law’s protection than the transgendered.
In Byzantine politics, a game played with considerable ferocity, for many government posts it was a requirement to be a eunuch. That was to prevent people from establishing their own dynasties.
…
…
In a debate between Sam Harris and megachurch pastor Rick Warren from the April 9 Newsweek, Warren said “If life is just random chance, then nothing really does matter and there is no morality – it’s survival of the fittest. If survival of the fittest means killing you to survive, so be it. For years, atheists have said there is no God, but they want to live like God exists.”
PZ’s statement is the perfect answer to this silly argument:
The question becomes: Do we trade a growing understanding of the biological basis of morality, and the real feelings of compassion and fellowship which we as individuals feel, and we as a species innately possess, or do we demand that everyone hew to the imagined commandments of a supernatural being? And do we kill any possibility of understanding morality by continuing to give credit for any goodness solely to this imagined being?
The biological avenue is a solid and defensible – and the only workable – approach. The religious avenue is wishful thinking – “unmooring one’s ethics from anything real.”
…
This is yet another of the 180-degrees-backwards wrongnesses built into religion: We don’t die, we live forever. We’re not our real selves, we’re disembodied spirits riding around in bodies like randomly-hailed taxicabs. And morality is not an outgrowth of innate compassion built into our species, it’s solely the creation of a mystical superbeing who lives in the sky (… uh, or somewhere, we’re pretty sure).
…
…
So they banned displays of the Bible? That is progress! *grin*
I didn’t think he/she would be fired. Clearwater has a growing gay population (they have REALLY fixed up a dying city and brought it back to life) so I thought there would be more acceptance and less stubborn old farts who oppose change of any kind.
Yes, I said Clearwater, not Largo, but seriously, Clearwater, Largo/St. Pete are like 3 feet big and right on top of each other. They really shouldn’t bother calling themselves separate names, LOL If it wasn’t for the huge amounts of traffic, you could drive from one end to the other in 3 minutes or less.
As for, “…the man has been dead for almost 2000 years.” I’m sorry, did someone discover some historical evidence that supports that there ever was such a person? And no, the bible doesn’t count.
What would Jesus have thought of transgendered persons? Well, Christian scripture (Mark Chapter 14) describes the famous scene of Christ’s betrayal this way:
So who was the naked young man? Some speculate it was Jesus’ special friend.
Nice to hear from a guy who’s authorized to speak for Jesus. Pastor Ron must have balls the size of Pharisees.
His followers wouldn’t even recognize him. Whatever else he was, he was almost certainly a rebel and anti-establishment. I have to believe that if he were walking on the earth today, he’d take one look at the commercialism of religion, the expensive gaudy hurches, the hypocrisy of the rich who claim to be christians, etc, and say, “No! This is not what I meant at all!” Very few of his followers could actually live the lifestyle he (supposedly) advocated. And.. he’d be a democrat for sure.
This is exactly the type of thing PZ was just making fun of – just from the opposite perspective. We have no way of knowing how a 1st century rabbi who was part of a millenialist movement would react to ANYTHING in the modern day and age. Our world is so different now than it was 2000 years ago that we can’t say with ANY certainty how anyone from that time period would react to it. I might be convinced that said person might totally freak out over the noise, cars, and other accoutrements of modern existence. And I might be convinced that said person would be completely surprised that the world still exists (since one of the common factors of both Western and Mid-East Culture for the last 2000 years is a distinct belief that the end of the world was coming “soon”). But beyond that I wouldn’t want to make any predictions.
It is an amusing image, though, of a 1st century rabbi being asked his opinion on transgender surgery. First you’d have to explain to him what that all entailed…
We have no way of knowing how a 1st century rabbi who was part of a millenialist movement would react to ANYTHING in the modern day and age.
Well, assuming that he actually existed, and that the new testament is at least a rough account of his character, we can make some educated guesses. For example, “give all your money to the poor and follow me”, or his outrage at the money changers in the temple, etc. These things are very much at odds with the image of Jesus that some right-wing bible-thumpers have.
All those people who say Jesus was an anti-establishment rebel: how do you know he was just against the current establishment? Maybe he really just wanted to institute a new establishment that was closer to his own beliefs, goals, and morals.
“If Jesus were here tonight, I guarantee you he’d be bitch-slapping Jose Contreras. Make no mistake about it.” ~ Ozzie Guillen
So they banned displays of the Bible? That is progress! *grin*
Touche! The point goes to Nullifidian!
And what most people forget is that Jesus (assuming he existed, assuming NT is accurate) didn’t even want to found a new Gentile church at all, but only wanted to preach to the Jews. See for example Matthew 10:
“These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”
The idea of preaching to non-Jews was Paul’s, and the so-called followers of Jesus seem to have ignored his wishes from the very beginning.
If Jesus was around today, and if he was anything like he is in the gospels that peace loving hippy wouldn’t last very long amongst the ‘religious’. Whenever I wonder what sort of person could torture an innocent human being and nail him to a cross I only have to look towards the pious to get my answer.
NonyNony, you remind me of a story in A Primate’s Memoir (see? I really did run out and read some Sapolsky!). The native Kenyans working at or near a Western tourist camp encounter a man with an electrolarynx. Due to ignorance of high tech medicine, plus other social divides, they eventually conclude that he is a robot.
Now, these were people who live in current times, ride around in cars, etc. Imagine the cultural abyss and resulting misunderstandings if someone from 30 CE visited us and tried to understand gender reassignment surgery!
“If Jesus was here tonight, I can guarantee you he’d want him terminated,”
LOL, a perfect fit!
“A fanatic is a man that does what he thinks the Lord would do if He knew the facts of the case.” – Finley Peter Dunne
Alas, Jesus wouldn’t want any “termination”, the proof is in the video :
“If Jesus was here tonight, I can guarantee you he’d want him terminated,”
i read that as “you’d want Jesus terminated”. much truer, that way.
If the real Jesus Christ were to stand up today
He’d be gunned down cold by the CIA
(The The – Armageddon Days Are Here, Again)
Even the most casual flip through the Gospels shows that Jesus isn’t the one who gets all worked up over what other people do with their privates. That’s entirely done by the ones who claim to speak for Him–and not while He was around to hear it, either.
The obvious conclusion is that this sort of assertion in His name just pisses Him off. Pastor Saunders is so going to Hell.
There is no more despised group, more openly discriminated against, and more in need of the law’s protection than the transgendered.
It’s defiently vying with Atheist for the top slot.
Being *both* is a barrel of fun.
This reminded me of Christopher Hitchens’ speech “The Moral Necessity of Atheism” linked here:
And in particular this statement that comes in around the 23:00 minute mark:
“It is a false claim of power in the secular world based upon a false claim of knowledge about an ethereal world beyond.”
He’s talking about similar claims to knowing what God/Jesus would do.
Hey, hang on! There’s no good evidence that this Jesus character actually existed. Except some hearsay, starting up a couple of generations after the supposed events. No Roman records – nothing – zilch.
Some people who should know better think it is acceptable “humor” to imply that Ann Coulter is transgendered. Would they do the same and make fun of her for allegedly being an atheist?
Hmmmpf. Bring on the Lizards.
Eunuchs not getting into heaven, OK. But plain bruised knackers as a bar to getting into the holy radiance? That’s harsh. You live a blameless Christian life, on you deathbed you can see the light coming, hear the choir eternal then a well-meaning niece, bringing a fruitbowl to cheerup you drops a pineapple on your tackle. Bruised cods, eternal damnation. Mmmmm. Gimme some of that God of eternal love.
Now we know why rapture has us all drifting skywards nekkid. “You never know the time or the day, so always have your back, sack and crack wax up to date in case Jesus calls.”
What I want to know is who gets the job? Which saint, which angel, archangel, throne or dominion gets the job of checking dead blokes’ balls for bruising? Do you get it as jankers if you’re naughty in Heaven?
What’s the deal with all of these literalist pastors anyway? If all morality is there in black and white in the bible, then the Gideons should have the situation well-covered.
I once had an argument with a literalist Baptist pastor in which he claimed that the bible was not only absolute truth, but completely objective and required no interpretation. In response I asked him what purpose pastors then served and told him to quit parasitising the faithful and get a real job.
“The idea of preaching to non-Jews was Paul’s, and the so-called followers of Jesus seem to have ignored his wishes from the very beginning.”
Stephen – that’s only if you can take the words of Matthew as the true words of Jesus, and not something that, say, the Jerusalem sect added later during their fights with the Gentile sects. The history of the construction of the Bible is fascinating stuff, actually, as fascinating as any other history. The more you read about the history of the Bible, the less sure you can be that the thing is any kind of “word of God” instead of a “record of the thoughts and ideas of a group of people in the Palestinian region of the Middle East until around 200AD”. Perhaps that’s why the Catholic Church discourages its members from reading the book for themselves.
The Bible also has a very specific endorsement of people like Stanton, so long as their testicle-removal is done for the sake of Godliness. Saunders should at least ask him…
Matthew 19:12:
“For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.”
It’s not funny to think of a right wing sex object as being a male in disguise?
Homophobics lusting after a man… that’s the humor. Childish yes.
I was disappointed when I found out about this that I was out of town and couldn’t make it to the meeting to show support.
There are a lot of hateful bastards around here.
Thinking of the transgendered as “males in disguise” is a perfect example of what I was talking about.
BUT SHE’S NOT TRANSGENDERED!
It’s a farce. Absurdism based on the bigotry of the right wing.
I mean, Rudy Gulliani is trying to run for president as a republican, and there’s video of him in drag on broadway… there’s no way the base of the republican party is going to vote for him.
It’s their own stupidity.
Childish yes.
Not just childish, but basically indistinguishable from what the bigots themselves do. When you laugh at a “homophobic” for lusting after a man, you’re agreeing that lusting after a man is a gross and scary thing. The difference between you and them is that you feel you can pat yourself on the back for not being a homophobe.
Back in the Pleistocene, when I was in high school, there was a ban on shorts, but not skirts, although in late August it was 95 degrees with 90% humidity and we had no air conditioning. Several soccer players wore denim miniskirts to school one day to protest the inequity. They were immediately sent home for the day for daring to wear girl’s clothing. Why the fear of crossing the gender line? And where do intersex people fit into the theology as practiced by Stanton? Or does he prefer to believe they don’t exist? (at a rate of about 1/2000, from the known stats)
“Transexual surgery” and “Fred Phelps” – now those are two concepts that go together quite well somehow…
John,
Thank you, it has been a major annoyance of mine for a long time. far too many ‘liberals’ think it’s just fine to use our very identity as a joke. If Coulter were brunet would any one think it was funny to suggest she was a ocatroon? I don’t think so. Also if she was Transsexual she would be a women not a ‘man in disguise’
I’m sorry if I seem a bit shrill but being trans can not only get you fired in all but nine states it can get you killed.
Natasha:
You don’t sound shrill … or “uppity” or “ball-busting” or any of the other phrases people will use to excuse their willingness to looked down on others. You sound like someone who simply wants the dignity to be treated as a person instead of a stereotype.
Last November we elected Kim Coco Iwamoto to the Hawaii State Board of Education (we have a single state-wide school system of 250 or so schools). I met her at a community function, had a nice chat about education, and voted for her. She has garnered some notice as, apparently, achieving the highest elective office by a transgendered person. One of our local TV stations interviewed her regarding her transgenderdness, before the election, I think.
There is nothing specific about her gender on her website (nor should there be):http://kimcoco.com/
She lists the local schools she attended; in Hawaii, it is very important “Where you wen grad”. She graduated from St. Louis High School, a Catholic all boys school. Then she went off the the mainland to study fashion/design. Somewhere between there and law school is when her transformation occurred.
On her website is a press release from her father, Robert Iwamoto, on the letterhead of his company (a Hawaii tour-bus operation with 1500 employees). He expresses how proud he is of his daughter.
We often say, “Only in Hawaii”, about a lot of things. I hope the election of a transgendered person cannot happen only in Hawaii.
Personally, I think gender reassignment is a surgical treatment for a psychological problem. I just don’t understand why some people feel this need to change their gender. I’m perfectly content being a man, but if I woke up tomorrow and found I had turned into a woman, I don’t think I’d be too upset. I’d damn sure be a lesbian, but I don’t see any reason why I couldn’t be happy being a woman. Lots of women are. I just don’t see any reason to change what I am. Male and female both sound like good options to me.
But you know something? That’s just my opinion. That only explains why I, personally, am never going to have a gender reassignment. I wouldn’t, for a second, presume to impose my preferences or prejudices on somebody else or pass judgment on what somebody else decides to do with his/her body.
What is it about religious prejudices that makes some people think it’s okay to impose them on other people who don’t even practice their @#$%^& religion???
(I apologize to any transgendered people who may have been offended by what I said above. Normally I try to keep my prejudices to myself. I’m just trying to make a point about personal preferences being… well, personal.)
junk science wrote:
I’m sorry. But that simply doesn’t follow.
When you laugh at a “homophobic” for lusting after a man, you’re agreeing that lusting after a man is a gross and scary thing.
I don’t make any such comments, because we don’t know how many genders Ann Cthoulter’s species actually have. The anal parasites of Beta Draconis are not well studied.
But but but today’s modern plastic surgery could allow Jesus to have a completely normal belly button just like all the other kids have.
junkscience wrote:
Um, no. You’re laughing because the jerks are what they hate (even if just in your mind). It’s hypocrisy, irony, what have you.
Nothing requires you to agree with bigots in order to laugh at bigots.
I almost cried reading the story P.Z. linked.
“Stanton left the room before the votes were cast, head down.”
How can these people sleep at night?
I do want to note that the city commissioner who accuses Stanton of having betrayed the people’s trust is named Gay Gentry. Read that again. OK, third time. For a second, I thought this might be an April Fool’s Day story, but it’s over a month old now.
While I won’t defend those so insensitive to think it is humor to imply that Ann Coulter is transgendered, you’ve got to admit it would be funny (but also bitter) if she was a closet atheist who wrote the shit she writes specifically to show that only the fanatically religious could believe such tripe.
Who needs a moral compass when you’ve got
…an ethical GPS and a compassionate credit card?
I have to side with John and Natasha on the Coulter-mannishness thing. Those pejorative jibes about her sexuality and alleged promiscuity, and the questioning of her femininity right down to her biological core, are not much different from Vox Day’s use of the term “Pharyngurl” which I, speaking as a gurl musulf, see as a demonstration not of his skill with wordplay (as he would wish) but of his insipidly patriarchal worldview.
Sure, I get what Steve_C is saying, there is ironic humor inherent in portraying this icon of strident right-wing values and cold-blooded sex appeal as something that most of her admirers would passionately shun. And the temptation to talk trash is huge: Coulter herself knows no restraint, her views are despicable, and she deserves pretty much everything thrown her way.
Still, I prefer the undead talking kite satire over the she-used-to-be-a-man stuff, if only because a) it’s a lot more creative, and b) real undead talking kites are generally speaking not sensitive to that sort of thing.
Jesus was a provincial rabble-rouser and religious fanatic
No, Jesus is a fictional character; not only can’t we know what he would do, but the very notion is incoherent. Any claim as to what he would do is just another case of what Saunders is doing — projection.
I have to side with John and Natasha on the Coulter-mannishness thing. Those pejorative jibes about her sexuality and alleged promiscuity, and the questioning of her femininity right down to her biological core, are not much different from Vox Day’s use of the term “Pharyngurl”
No, it’s nothing at all like that — that’s pure sophistry. These complaints about the jibes suggest some autistic difficulty in keeping track of who has which mental model. Most of the people who jibe Coulter about promiscuity or sexuality don’t themselves have any prejudices about those — it is Coulter’s prejudices and the prejudices of the freepers who slaver over her that are addressed by the jibes.
Some people who should know better think it is acceptable “humor” to imply that Ann Coulter is transgendered. Would they do the same and make fun of her for allegedly being an atheist?
If she made comments that could be perceived as atheist-like, then of course they would … just as, in a recent thread here, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council was ridiculed for citing “600,000 year old evidence” against global warming.
Ok, next stupid rhetorical question?
When you laugh at a “homophobic” for lusting after a man, you’re agreeing that lusting after a man is a gross and scary thing.
Are people really this stupid, or are they just pretending to be for rhetorical purposes? Do you even know a single gay person? Virtually every one I know has stated at one time or another that homophobes are deathly afraid of their own sexual attraction toward men.
In fact, I think junk science is displaying his own homophobia — “lusting after a man is a gross and scary thing” — pure projection, that.
You don’t sound shrill … or “uppity” or “ball-busting” or any of the other phrases people will use to excuse their willingness to looked down on others. You sound like someone who simply wants the dignity to be treated as a person instead of a stereotype.
Yes, of course, there’s no stereotyping in “… people will use …”, or in taking comments about Ann Coulter to apply somehow to Natasha, despite her desire to be treated as individual rather than based on a single characteristic.
The waters of hypocrisy run deep.
And where do intersex people fit into the theology as practiced by Stanton?
You mean Saunders; Stanton’s the victim. If you don’t want to deal just in stereotypes or treat people as props for your politics, at least give them the respect of remembering their names.
Thinking of the transgendered as “males in disguise” is a perfect example of what I was talking about.
You’re a perfect example of a blithering idiot, since you can’t tell the difference between a transvestite-but-not-really-because-shes-a-woman-…-its-a-joke and a transgendered person. You might be slightly less idiotic if you were to complain about criticizing people on the basis of being unattractive, but only slightly, because it’s Ann Coulter who is notorious for attacking “manly” women and contrasting them with “pretty girls” like herself: “My pretty-girl allies stick out like a sore thumb amongst the corn-fed, no make-up, natural fiber, no-bra needing, sandal-wearing, hirsute, somewhat fragrant hippie-chick pie wagons they call ‘women’ at the Democratic National Convention.”
Moron.
If coulter was really brunette but died her hair blond and hated brunettes with a deep-seated freudian-sexy-kinky-effed-up ignorant ideology then that would be very very funny. And the person pointing that out should cause no offence to brunettes (other than to use a gender-specific term to descibe their hair colour – is that sexist?? I dunno.)
She does look like a man though..
Sure, I’ve got one. (I never run out.)
If Coulter were a man, would he be criticised and satirized in virtually the same way as we see Ann criticised and satirized?
On another tack, is the percentage of jibes aimed at Rush Limbaugh that suggest that he’s a closeted homosexual come anywhere near the percentage of jibes aimed at Coulter that suggest he’s transgendered or transvested? (Can we find out?)
Indeed.
Do you really think that Coulter is never, ever criticized or mocked in a way that betrays some degree of bias against the transgendered, or against outspoken women? It appears that you do not. You say that “Most of the people who jibe Coulter about promiscuity or sexuality don’t themselves have any prejudices about those,” and I agree, not just because I know that “All of the people who…” is not a statement a truth machine would generate.
We must conclude, however, that some of the people who jibe Coulter in the ways we are discussing DO have prejudices about those things. How can we know whether or not any given jibe is rooted in bias? Often we cannot. And if we cannot, then why not question it?
This is not a case of me having some “autistic difficulty” in keeping track of who thinks what, it’s a case of me recognizing that the kind of rhetoric we’re addressing lives in a very grey area between bashing someone for expressing deplorable views, and bashing someone for expressing those deplorable views while being a woman. I think it’s worthwhile to recognize that.
I see. It’s better if you make fun of transvestites?
So her insensitive and stupid actions justify yours insensitive and stupid actions? (And I assume they are yours, given the vitriol.)
The simple fact is, unless you are so scrupulous as to lay that scenario out every time the comments about her Adam’s apple are made (which is not the case by my observation), then the “joke” only “works” because of a shared attitude that the transgendered (including transvestites) are ridiculous and need not be taken seriously. If you do lay the scenario out, it’s merely cheap humor that reveals more about the person spreading it than the supposed “victim.”
As far as Natasha is concerned, if I offended her, I’ll apologize. But somehow, given your emotional defense of the very practice she complained about, I doubt you are the person to deliver the message.
Because if I can’t keep the names straight, there is no validity to my question at all. That’s maybe at best one step more valid than criticizing an entire position based on a typo, but yes, I should have scrolled back to the top of the page to doublecheck. Point being?
Don’t be so hard on the machine. He is, after all, only a machine. The truths generated by this machine can be useful, educational, at times even enlightening. At other times, because the machine is the product of evolution rather than design, imperfections in its programming become apparent. Clearly, calling Carlie to task for simply confusing a seven-letter “S” name for an eight-letter “S” name suggest a weighting problem somewhere in the configuration of the machine’s heuristics engine. Can this be corrected? I do not know.
Regardless of all that, the real Truth of the matter was stated by Graculus:
The anal parasites of Beta Draconis are not well studied.
“Whenever I wonder what sort of person could torture an innocent human being and nail him to a cross I only have to look towards the pious to get my answer.”
Except, of course, that crucifixion was a standard Roman criminal punishment. And I just read the Cases of Judge Dee, including Chinese routine use of torture of suspects (can’t convict without a confession, see). The Romans had their own piety, true, but I’d say it’s falsely self-congratulatory to attribute torture only to the “pious”.
The real joke in PZ’s blog entry is that somebody’s irony detector has to be seriously broken if they think that anybody who’s been crucified would automatically seek the death sentence for someone who merely crossed over a social boundary.
Not saying JC wouldn’t, mind you. I’m sure prolonged torture leading to the point of death could produce all sorts of changes to someone’s personality. But, fictional or not, it’s an odd thing to expect of a person, really.
Carlie: I attended a high school with a uniform. Several female classmates of mine and a few others from other grades got together and started wearing the pants which male students typically wore instead of skirts. A lot of teachers got rather annoyed, with some others supporting the students. Having a reputation already as a logical thinker, I pointed out that nowhere in the student guide did it say that skirts were for females, pants for males. Now (last I checked) at that school the rule is sexist: females may wear either but males must wear pants.