It was 3:30 in the AM Pacific time, and I was packing to leave for LAX (I’m in the airport now), and I was tuned in to MSNBC to Morning Joe, where Tucker Carlson was subbing and they were discussing last night’s HRC/LOGO forum.
Brad Luna of HRC was interviewed on the show, and Tucker went into a — excuse me — completely batsh*t dialog with Luna about transgenders and gender reassignment surgery. Carlson was nearly apoplectic and grabbing his “boys” at the thought of someone wanting to transition (clearly only MTF in his mind) and having surgery to remove male genitalia. It came up in the context of John Edwards answering a question about whether he would support a staff member who informed him that they wanted to undergo gender reassignment.
Brad tried ably to place the matter into context, that someone willing to put up with the potential ridicule and rejection to transition to a different gender has already spent a lot of time thinking about reassignment surgery, and that the removal of that part of themselves is not viewed as self-mutilation, as Tucker believes, but as corrective surgery.
Needless to say, logic did not seem to penetrate Mr. Tucker’s hysterical mind and his vivid images of a scalpel coming anywhere near his testicles.
Thumbs up to Brad Luna for making it through that insane interview. More after the jump.
They had a lot of fun replaying Governor Richardson’s meltdown when he was asked about whether being gay is a choice or biological. I don’t think the earnest damage control by his campaign is helping them out of this pickle.
They seemed to view the question Melissa Etheridge posed as part of some orthodoxy in the LGBT community that being gay is not a choice, and any candidate that believes this is not following some sort of LGBT party line. No, the issue last night was that she believed that the governor misheard the question, based on his gay-positive record, which is why she restated it. The fact that he missed an opportunity to clarify at the time is what caused the matter to spin out of control.
The obvious question that seemed to escape Tucker Carlson and the Morning Joe gang is it’s clear they don’t consider whether their (presumed) heterosexuality was a choice they made. It’s fascinating to see that blind spot playing itself out in the discussion. That said, it could have opened up a thoughtful conversation about the fluidity of sexuality generally — that people tend to want to box our sexuality into fixed orientations, when that may not be true for everyone on the sexual continuum. That doesn’t mean, however, that the vast majority of gay and straight folks don’t know their orientation early on.
Related:
* Behind the scenes at the HRC/LOGO presidential forum…
* Liveblogging the HRC/LOGO Visible Vote 08 Forum
* Winners and losers at the HRC/LOGO VisibleVote08 forum
50 Responses to “Tucker Carlson’s hysteria over his “boys” in a discussion about transgender issues”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
That’s a great little back and forth, really.
“It’s a choice…”
“I don’t think you heard me right…”
I’ve been struck repeatedly by how sloppily Richardson speaks before thinking sometimes. I can’t picture him as the ice-in-the-veins international negotiator that he was always depicted as in the media.
Quite frankly, I don’t care if it’s a choice or if it’s biological. As long as people are given equal rights, feel free. Hell, as a straight person, you’re allowed to marry someone you don’t love (who happens to be opposite gender). If you want, you should be able to marry someone of the same gender that you don’t love. *shrugs* Some people are only attracted to the same gender, some people are only attracted to those with brown hair…whatever floats your respective boat is fine with me, whether or not you chose it or are born that way. So maybe he can think “It’s a choice” and still think that gays and lesbians should be able to marry.
What testicles? The guy wears a bowtie for fucks sake.
Yeah, I never sat down to weigh the pros and cons of being straight…I just was. I’ve never been able to see how homosexuality could be different. (Frankly, it wouldn’t matter to me if it was a choice; de gustibus non disputandum est. But it isn’t one.)
I think his clarification was pretty well thought out. Personally I don’t think it’s really correct to characterize it as a choice, but it’s also not like people are born with a sexual orientation either. Lots of people go through life and over the course of their life who they’re attracted to might change. Politically, it’s irrelevant anyways. The way Etheridge presented it there was no middle ground or nuance allowed in the answer.
IMHO, ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer.
I’ve long found it funny how my fellow males often refer to their testes as “boys,” even when they’ve sired nothing but daughters. We just don’t think this shit through, I swear.
Whether or not it is a choice is immaterial to the personal liberty of adults in American society.
Whether or not Democratic politicans believe it is a choice is also immaterial to the ethic of personal liberty and public responsibility that is supposed to undergird our politics.
Why?
Why it is that the whole nature/nurture bullshit has extended to be so deep that it is now a litmus test for presidential candidates? Buddha on a biscuit, the glbt community is shooting queer theory in the foot with a 12 gauge on this one.
Not like this is something somebody wakes up one day and gets done before lunch, sheesh. Another classic case of thinking far too much about the equipment and far too little about the human issues involved.
Why must they always think about testicles?
Someone needs to grab Tucker Carlson by the shoulders and shake him whilst yelling “tolerated isn’t the same as mandatory!” until he gets it. Sheesh.
Hey, Tucker, I heard that old people are having sex somewhere. Does that give you the ickies? Better start a movement to prevent the old folks from humpin’!
At the end of it all, the politicians can spew any platitudes they like. I don’t really care if they think people become gay because they are kidnapped by aliens (/insert favorite conspiracy-theory/theological-orthodoxy here).
In the end, what matters is whether they support equal rights for all citizens, and whether they have the political “boys” to follow through on that support. As an adult, I understand what is politically ‘achievable’ may not be ‘the whole enchilada’ at once….but I certainly don’t respect anyone who isn’t willing to support GBLT citizens’ claims to their entitlement of their full civil rights. Because then I always wonder who else doesn’t ‘deserve’ the same rights they think THEY are entitled to?
Whether or not it is a choice is immaterial
Being a Baptist is a choice, but that doesn’t make it okay to discriminate against Baptists.
Transgendering has a high degree of “ick” for me personally–the idea of doing that rather horrifies me. But, of course, there’s no point in freedom if it’s only freedom to do something I approve of. Lots of people feel a lot of “ick” for the “guy + guy” stuff I prefer. There are people out there who find all sex disgusting. So, contrary to Mr. Carlson, “ick” can’t be the test for whether or not we recognize somebody’s civil rights. What goes on in the bedroom between or among consenting adults ought not to be a legitimate reason to evict, fire, or jail anyone.
Add this to the menu of TERROR ALL THE TIME ABOUT EVERYTHING EVERYWHERE EVER that the Republican Palace has used to empower itself at any cost.
It’s not just the cartoon villainly of religions outside the chosen Bush/Rove led Republicult Theofascism at the top of the heirarchy that is “The Enemy”.
It’s also the Menace du Jour being used to terrify the living fuck out of people and keep them perpetually unsettled, even about people and concepts they’re actually quite comfortable with. Literally everyone either has friends & fam who are, or are themselves gay. It’s just a fact.
The number done on people’s heads by the Department of Hooey on this issue is unbelievable.
They’ve panic-struck this particular Menace du Jour into a terrifying hot brand about to “assault” conventional marriage, transforming an otherwise dopey moment that in any but the most severely uptight might ordinarily raise doubts in their psyche, be experienced and processed, examined later and resolved somehow.
But in the Hair On Fire Bush Years, apparently this quite routine random thought now swoops in like twin exploding airplanes headed straight for Tucker Carlson’s tighty whitey bunkered nuts.
Lord deliver us all.
I imagine any surgeon who attempted to remove Tucker Carlson’s testicles would have to have remarkable eyesight.
I just don’t get the “ick” factor for any of this. Just because someone else does it doesn’t mean they think you will, or should have to. I have no desire to change my gender (or sex; forgive me, I forget which term i should be using here), so the thought of someone else doing it doesn’t automatically make me think of what it would be like for myself (other than trying intellectually to imagine what it would feel like to not “match” my body). Now, maybe if I was considering transitioning, but hadn’t made up my mind yet, such thoughts might make me uncomfortable, but still…nah. I just don’t see why it should bother you.
The few people I’ve met who had transitioned were amazing people. I guess, once you’ve figured that out and taken care of it you have a pretty good perspective on what’s important in life and what you can accomplish. Besides, don’t we, as a culture have a long-standing desire/fascination with being able to change our sex? Marcel Duchamp? David Bowie? I can’t be the only one who considered the erotic possibilities of Polyjuice Potion after reading Harry Potter (c’mon, you know Hermione checked out her new Harry-shaped body before they took off).
If Richardson had said “who cares if it’s a choice, everyone deserve equal rights regardless of who they love,” that would have been a fine answer. Us queers are just suspicious because the choice/biology divide gets slammed against us too often by the ex-gay types. If more people put sexuality on the level of taste — as in, I like pears and hate green peppers — we’d all be better off.
mothworm: Heh. I was thinking the same thing about Hermione when I read that section. Now that I think about it, I think it was actually my wife who was reading it aloud to me while I was driving and she paused a bit there. Probably thinking the same thing.
Way back in my ethics class we got treated to the jokes about how not to formulate Kantian imperatives — in particular the fact that wanting to go to the beach doesn’t mean you believe everyone in the whole universe should go to the beach right now. It really didn’t seem that hard to get.
Tucker discarded the bowtie some time ago. He goes for the “no tie open collar yet no-unkept” look. I don’t want to sound like I’m making fun of Tucker here, but look at him, he’s a perfect candidate for anxious masculinity. Slim figure, face narrows at the chin, narrow shoulders, mussed up hair. I don’t know his height, but he doesn’t look tall anyway. He’s not a big guy. As a small guy who went to a High School with an abnormal number of tall, broad-shouldered guys, and the biggest jerks were about my height (five and half or lower). It doesn’t make you feel good being the small guy. It doesn’t help either that human genitals feel vulnerable, just hanging out there with no natural padding. Us candidates for anxious masculinity have to just find the advantages to our body type (a svelte figure means you can get out of tight parking places for instance) and if need be, compensate for the disadvantages (aikido). Making friends in college with people who don’t give a flying f*** about gender roles helps even mor.* Then of course there’s compensating by being condescended, which guarrantees people are gonna think ill of you in ways having a small body doesn’t.
*Feminism taught me not to place value on gender roles, curing me of most body type-based anxiety. Thank you, feminists past and present. Equality is nutritious.
OMG! The transexuals are coming for our testicles!*
*Okay, not mine, actually. I have ovaries.**
**Should I be worried that FTMs are out to get them? It’s never been a concern before, but we’ve all heard the absolutely! true!stories about people waking up in motel bathtubs, covered in ice, and missing a kidney. What if there are hordes of transexuals out there knocking people out and taking their sex organs?
Murphy: I think it was a stupid question that denies the complexity of sexual orientation and sexual identity. There are a fair number of people who can swing either way and make conscious decisions about how to live their lives and what political identity they want to be associated with.
I’m with Murphy on this one, it’s a good yardstick question, and I also had discussed it with my friends that if Richardson had answered like Murphy says, it would have been a huge point in his corner.
Someone clinging to choice is a good sign that they’ve got issues.
As to the debate itself, I watched it at a LGBT bar with a bunch of friends, which was packed with a ton of other lesbians, all watching avidly.
Richardson went down in flames. I was just constantly amazed throughout his session that he seemed to tank more and more as he went on. It was like watching a car crash. Which is all the more surprising given he has one of the best political records of all the presidential candidates on LGBT legislation.
That said, mind you, I used to lean in his direction. I don’t anymore. He seriously pissed me off.
Hilary dissappointed the crap out of me. She OPENLY stated she wasn’t going to repeal all of DOMA. WTF? Exactly what part of that horrible piece of legislation did you think we’d support?! Of all the candidates, she on a personal level has the most queer contact in terms of her daily life, and to see that kind of patronising “Listen to me, I know what is best for you” on OUR issues, just annoyed the shite out of me.
Obama I liked a lot, showing how comfortable he was. Admittedly I didn’t like that he wasn’t in favour of SSM, but I did like how he was adamant that LGBT rights are more than merely SSM, adding in race and class into what he was saying.
Edwards also kinda impressed me. I did feel he is getting closer to the intelligence of his wife on this issue, but I did have one problem. Sure, good on him for saying his religion doesn’t inform his opposition to SSM, saying that religion SHOULDN’T be imposed in civil legislation. However, if religion isn’t his basis for opposing SSM, I do really WISH someone had asked then what the hell was.
Kucinich and Gravel I adored, as of course I knew I would. A friend and I were saying it was depressing in a way when you hear candidates saying all the things you wish they would, that are basic, and yet don’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of being elected.
All in all I am sticking with Obama, with Edwards not too far behind. If anything, Hilary has lost even more of my support, but I’d still have her in third. Biden and Dobbs can go fuck themselves for not turning up (fucking priorities guys). Richardson I don’t even want as VP anymore.
Whenever one talks about wingnut bottom-dwelling mudsuckers like Tucker Carlson, it would be good to have a short biography.
Like almost all of them like Carlson, they have no education, no experience, no knowledge. They speak through their collective ass. The exception being O’Reilly who actually has an education. At least when Billo is lying(there are times he isn’t?), we can be sure that he is doing it intentionally.
With Carlson, you might wonder if he is just stupid or if he is lying intentionally. Most likely the former.
Someone clinging to choice is a good sign that they’ve got issues.
A sign of what exactly?
Given that Murphy’s non-answer implies that it’s a trick question to begin with, in what way is this a good yardstick of anything other than the ability to dance around the truth?
Tucker Carlson was born in 1969. So he was 34 when Bush started his war. Did anyone hear of Carlson trying to enlist to save western civilization?
As Tucker is obviously not gay, that could not have been the reason for him not signing up.
As Tucker is obviously not gay
Oh, I don’t think that’s obvious at all . . .
A sign of whether or not they might be someone we could trust to work with on our rights and politics. The only people that are really wedded to gay as being a choice are either bigots or ignorant.
Saying “for the far majority it’s not a choice, but why should it matter if it is?” shows a level of understanding of LGBT issues. Hell, even saying “no it’s not a choice” shows they tend to be more supportive. Saying that being gay is a choice is a yardstick of intolerance, just as use of the word ‘homosexual’ to describe us is, as both tend to be the the province of the bigots.
Sarah in Chicago: A sign of whether or not they might be someone we could trust to work with on our rights and politics. The only people that are really wedded to gay as being a choice are either bigots or ignorant.
Bullshit.
First of all, the entire dichotomy is little more than a pseudo-scientific myth with no evidence in support of it. None of the studies from either human biology and human psychology supports a single cause model of sexuality, and I don’t think any study ever will.
Second, the entire LGB spectrum includes people who identify as straight and engage in gay relationships, people who identify as gay and engage in straight relationships, people who identify as bisexual/omnisexual/etc.. People who “went though a phase,” and so on and so on.
Saying “for the far majority it’s not a choice, but why should it matter if it is?”…
If the best answer to the question is ducking the question, then it’s not a good question. My answer to the question would be that “sexuality is complex, and all flavors of sexuality deserve equal protection under the law.”
I always think it’s funny when guys cling to their balls like they’re afraid they might fall off, but I think Tucker Carlson has a valid concern. In fact, he’s probably too late.
The only people to whom it would even occur that sexual orientation might be a choice are gay or bisexual people who think they’re supposed to be straight, or people who hate sex, blame it on their being straight, and decide that being gay might be more interesting.
*sigh*
Whatever CBrachyrhynchos, you’re totally missing the entire point of what I am saying here, and honestly, I don’t really care to explain it to you any more than I have been.
READ what I said.
To be honest, the only answer to the “choice” question I like is: Who the fuck cares?!
Thanks Jeff hon, exactly my point *mwah*
That was basically the answer I was going for, MAJeff… in presidential candidate-speak.
(hope this isn’t an accidental multiple post… it’s really not that important)
junk science: The only people to whom it would even occur that sexual orientation might be a choice are gay or bisexual people who think they’re supposed to be straight, or people who hate sex, blame it on their being straight, and decide that being gay might be more interesting.
You know, just about everyone who has studied sexuality since Freud has argued that there are multiple dimensions to sexuality, some of which boil down to anatomy and hormones, and some are cultural constructions. Choice is obviously the wrong answer, does that mean “born this way” is necessarily the right answer? As a person much smarter than me said, “I didn’t chose to speak English, that must mean I was born speaking English.”
Wait, I don’t get how “even saying “no it’s not a choice” shows they tend to be more supportive.” I’m not trying to be a jerk here; I really want to understand. Do you mean that it’s like the religious nuts I used to work with, who were not exactly pro-queer but were not totally homophobic because, in their words, “That’s how God made them?”
As far as myself, if it matters at all, I don’t really care *at all* why people are attracted to whatever adults they’re attracted to. Maybe I’m hardwired to be attracted to a range of genders, and maybe I made that choice subconsciously because I’m so picky about everything else, gender is the least of my concerns in choosing a date/lover/etc. But it really doesn’t matter.
Oh, also, I think it would be *much* better for the world if everyone questioned their own gender and sexual preferences. For me, it killed any curiosity I had about friends or love interests defining themselves as trans or genderqueer. Why am *I* a “woman” (as I was labelled at birth). Dunno, it just seems right. And that was enough for me to get that other people would just know.
BTW, I’m reading Julia Serano’s new “Whipping Girl: A Transsexual Woman on Sexism and the Scapegoating of Femininity” and I can’t recommend it enough. She’s fascinating, and though the ideas are fairly complex, she does a really good job of making them easy to understand. Not so easy, of course, is recognizing one’s own unconscious prejudices! But, like Buffy, I’m still cookie dough, and it’s a good sort of growing pain.
The question to presidential candidates about whether or not being gay is a choice is a two-part meta question. The first part of the real question is: “Do you believe in the anti-gay agenda of treating gay people like sexual deviants who can choose to be gay and therefore can also choose to be straight?” The second part of the real question, related to the first, is, “Have you thought about the ugly politics of anti-gay folk to know a trap when you see one, because, if you don’t know how to speak politically about advocating gay issues when surrounded by gay people, what the hell good are you anyway?”
Richardson so blew the second real question that whatever way he wants to address the first one — either last night or this morning — is immaterial.
Insisting that sexuality can’t be a choice is almost as narrow-minded, exclusive and intolerant of people’s sexuality as insisting that it must be a choice.
Insisting that sexuality can’t be a choice is almost as narrow-minded, exclusive and intolerant of people’s sexuality as insisting that it must be a choice.
Yeah, I get what you’re saying. I guess I should have said I was talking about the people who really seem to care whether or not it’s a choice.
Holly:
Hence the accusations of a false dichotomy. There’s no mutual exclusivity. It’s far more likely, IMHO, that individual sexual behaviour is simulaneously shaped by both choice and biology, and in a constantly-fluctuating-over-time relationship, to boot.
I’ve historically been in the “it doesn’t matter if it’s choice or biology” camp, but more and more I’m allying myself with the opinion that the nature/nurture question isn’t even valid to begin with, because it necessarily argues from within the anti-gay frame that constructs homosexuality as a disease.
Diseases almost always have relatively simple causes (a virus, a chemical, a bacterium, a genetic mutation). Sexuality doesn’t. The nature/nurture question attempts to force a complex human behaviour to conform to a single simple either/or explanation, and that dog don’t hunt.
I don’t think the question of Richardson is about “orthodoxy” excatly; believe what you like… but are gay people looking for an answer in politicians they support? Sure, because we all tend to know that we were born this way.
I agree that the most unintentionally funny moment was Melissa essentially offering a do-over, and Richardson still missing it. Mind you, I think Richardson flamed out well before then; that just iced the cake.
As for the rest, I think Obama continues to do a nice job making his personal history into a great story (I, too, benefit from Loving vs. Virginia in a personal way, and I liked his bringing that into the debate), but his answers were too careful and too vague to amount to a real substantive response. As for Edwards, he seemed so deliberately to be walking back his “uncomfortable” answers on gay people that any benefit seemed overwhelmed by the obvious calculation. And while I didn’t love any particular Hillary answer, overall she continues to strike a sense of confidence and assuredness about her campaign (she still strikes me as the one most ready to actually be President, even f she’s not one I would like).
But thank God for Kucinich and Gravel. I refuse to give into this “there’s no way they can win” logic - they can win if people choose to support them over other choices, and both were so far and away better on gay issues that it really turned me around - I could comfortably vote for Kucinich just on last night alone. really, if we care about our own issues, why would we accept what any of those big three are trying to sell us?
Fine, Holly, but ignoring that “choice” is used as a battering ram by the religious right is naive. The politics of the question are not the same as the reality of the question, and the debate is about politics.
I too share the “it’s way too complex, so picking a choice/innate answer is meaningless, and we need to quit acting like any sexuality is somehow a mistake” camp. But what difference does it make that I feel a more complex, nuanced answer is in order? The only people who care about nuance are people who already believe that GLBTQ people are fully human, something not believed by the vocally political people who profess that being “homosexual” is a “choice.” The question is not important in the abstract. The question is important because it sets up the candidate positions in light of the coded language of the far right.
Is it narrow minded? Sure, but so is the discussion of pretty much any issue that is framed in today’s political debate. Is someone for or against affirmative action? Someone on the right will say that they’re opposed to quotas, despite the fact that quotas have been illegal for years, because it continues to frame the debate on their terms. And as long as the debate is misframed, the left must begin any answer on it by saying, “Yes, I support affirmative action,” and then can go on to detail whatever nuance makes sense in the situation. Many people on the left support affirmative action in nuanced ways, thinking that there are various ways to approach racial equality in education and employment, but they have to get through the initial gauntlet of proclaiming their support for it to indicate their bona fides, their assurance that their approaches will be in good faith, unlike the approaches of the far right. Same with so many other misframed, false-choice-ridden issues in the political sphere: environmental protection, school vouchers, war funding, etc.
Candidates have to jump through some hoops, even if they are ultimately meaningless in reality, because they have to demonstrate that they frame the issue in a sympatico way. It’s dumb as shit, but that’s what we pay billions of dollars for every election cycle. Fun fun fun.
Kucinich and Gravel both know they will never make president. However, their presence is incredibly important because it forces those candidates who may become president to talk about (and come up with policies for) those “fringe” issues currently acceptable to the majority of those polled in the past year; things like cheney impeachment and SSM.
Kucinich as a person I find terribly self-aggrandizing and not a very good manager given his history in executive office. That being said, I love his recurring Capitol Step events touting his Impeach Dick Cheney bill, where he shows off his ever-increasing group of co-sponsors. That is his purpose right now, and it is a very good one, I think.
“They had a lot of fun replaying Governor Richardson’s meltdown when he was asked about whether being gay is a choice or biological. I don’t think the earnest damage control by his campaign is helping them out of this pickle.”
I have never understood why it matters from either an ethical or political standpoint whether being gay is “a choice or biological”. Either way, it is clearly within the realm of the constitutional right to privacy and self-determination, and thus should be the basis neither for any differential entitlement to legal rights and privileges, nor for allowable discrimination by private parties. I get that there is a legal strategy of analogizing sexual orientation with race, but it seems to me that this is, ultimately, counterproductive. In my opinion, it is better to argue that the rights to sexual privacy and self-determination in constituting a family are guaranteed.
I thought that Richardson made clear that he supports these legal rights, so why should anyone care about his opinion on the biology of sexual orientation?
As a straight guy who would very much like to be able to enjoy a romp in the hay with another fella, my experience suggests that sexual orientation is very much *not* a choice. I can certainly find another man sexy, but damn if the smell isn’t just about the most enfloppinating thing ever. If I ever meet a willing man who smells like a woman, I’d have no compunction about jumping his bones.
Geeee Bill, tell me it’s not true!?!?
I know Bill Richardson personally, and he know’s me very well, too.
I am one of New Mexico’s & Nation’s, most prolific TG activist/advocate’s, who has had numerous discussions with him, regarding whether or not being GLBT was a “choice,” or an in Uteri occurrence, as one of nature’s anomalies.
What he, and/or his “advisor’s” were thinking, came across horribly wrong, as a major malfunction between brain, and mouth!
As far as anyone having a “Choice” in being a member of the GLBT Community, you’d have to be an absolute masochist!
Who, in their right mind, would want to be purposely discriminated against, hated, humiliated, and thought of as an entity, on the bottom of life’s Totem?
So, Bill, it’s NOT A CHOICE!!!!!
Now, as far as the “Marrige” thingy…..
These are the statement’s, with ending question’s, I wanted to ask all the candidates:
Dear Democratic Presidential Candidates~
1. Why, as a Human Being, American Citizen, who Loves her Country, and Nationally known Transgender Activist/Advocate from my beautiful State of New Mexico, passionately dedicated in establishing Unequivocal Equality, Healcare Benefits, and Basic Human Civil Rights for ALL my Sister’s and Brother’s, am I, as well as so many others, still consistently denied, any of the same Equalities and Healthcare Benefit’s, that you ALL enjoy?
2. a. As Human Beings, first and foremost, why does Religious Judgmental Hierarchy, have to take precedence, over anyone’s right to Love and Marry whom they choose?
b. LOVE, has NO boundaries…..
We must preserve and honor, anyone’s Basic Human Civil Right, in having the Freedom to Choose, a Life Partner.
LOVE, does Not discriminate, nor should it ever be defined, decreed, and/or restricted, as an entitlement, only, to a Man, & a Woman.
Anyone, who instigates others through fear and prejudice, utilizing this as a Political, and/or Religious tool, for a discriminatory agenda, abandoning any civil, humanistic approach toward Diversity Sensitivity, Understanding, & the Respect of those deemed “Different,” apparently lacks any sense of human compassion, and embrace’s, an arrogant, & unprogressive mentality.
DO YOU AGREE?
Be open-minded on Transgender phenomenon
The technology and scientific studies, here in the United States and abroad, confirm the existence of a multivariable distribution of male and female hormones, in a fetus’ brain resulting in numerous anomalies of the human genome in nature.
As a researcher, activist and advocate in all aspects of transgender education, I have spent a good part of my life trying to figure out just what happened to me. The overwhelming desire in wanting to dress, and live full time as the opposite gender has been an extraordinarily tumultuous journey since I was seven years of age.
Skeptics concerning this incredible anomaly of nature need to further their education through continuous extensive research worldwide. Being transgender has been a part of this planet for millions of years.
When a human being who is Transgender tries to exist in a society of bigots, religious fanatics, and agenda-seeking judgmental persons, their attempts at survival within these confines can be drastically devastating to mind, body, and soul.
My advice to unprogressive Human Beings is to become increasingly more educated on what it is like being Transsexual and then take a good, hard, intellectual look from an open-minded perspective to know that it is that is not a choice, but an in utero, biological phenomenon.
Love, Peace, Equality, & Solidarity ~
~Mekah Gordon, PhD, L. E.~
Pioneering, Frontier Renaissance Woman, Consummate Optimist & Visionary
Human Rights Advocate/Activist - Educator/Consultant - Freelance Writer-TG Issues - Santa Fe Regional Editor & Board Member/For The Normal Heart Newspaper - Board Member of the NMSPC {New Mexico Suicide Prevention Coalition}, Recipient, of the prestige’s, “2007 Commitment to Care Award” from the Alliance for Gender Awareness - Full membership World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) Formerly known as the Harry Benjamin Gender Dysphoria Association (HBIGDA)
Founder/Director ~
S. U. R. E. Foundation®
SUREducation@aol.com
22 Juego Rd.
Santa Fe, NM 87508-4298
USA
505-466-4277
*In order to achieve the same rights, without compromise, there are NO other options, than Unequivocal Equality.
~ Mekah Gordon
*The word, “Tolerance,” no matter how you bend it, twist it, or turn it inside out,”Reeks” of Discrimination.
“RESPECT,” however, eradicates implicitness for bigotry, hate, bias, & prejudice.
~Mekah Gordon
*No One on this planet, should ever have, or be granted the power, right, nor stand in judgment, of anyone’s Basic Human Civil Rights, by enforcing through Constitutional Decree, or otherwise, whom one should love, and marry, NO ONE!
~Mekah Gordon
*It’s the Tenacity, Persistence, Fortitude, & Faith, that’s perennial, in those of us, who refuse to give up, in our pursuit for Unequivocal Equality, & Basic Human Civil Rights.
~Mekah Gordon
*Transitionally Speaking: Quotes, From a Pioneering, Frontier Renaissance Woman
Tucker was 32 when the wa started. If is birthday is early in the year, he could have been 33.
I know, because I was born in ‘67. I was 34 when I got to Kuwait, and was able to enjoy my 35th birthday in Iraq.
So Tucker was born two years after me (more or less).
#44, “Kucinich as a person I find terribly self-aggrandizing and not a very good manager given his history in executive office.”
In fact, Kucinich was a good manager. He refused to privatize the electrical system as mayor. As a result he was the target of assassination plots and then lost an election because of the campaign against him organized by the corporate interests which wanted to get their hands on the system.
His personal history is a good example of what is wrong with corporate America.
You know, the whole transgender thing… if I woke up tomorrow with a woman’s body, I’d still be a man. It’s what I am; it’s what I’ve always been. It wouldn’t really change if the woman’s body had seniority… I’m a man. I don’t know what it is that makes me a man, but whatever it is, it’s what I am.
And if there was surgery that would make me look like a man, so I’d be treated like a man, well, I’d probably want that surgery.
I reckon women feel the same way.