04-04-2015, 10:38 AM
I see, Donovan.
Intolerance exists here at Mock, for sure. It exists everywhere. But I don't see the responses in this thread as indicative of intolerance. Different perspectives, I guess.
There are differences of opinion about transgenders and gender dysphoria, even amongst the medical professionals. So, it's not surprising to me that there would be differences of opinion amongst Mock members too.
And, I don't think referring to someone who has a penis as "he", even though the person identifies more as a female, is a sure sign of "intolerance". It's confusing and the topic is rather new ground for the general public. What's considered "appropriate" terminology is in flux. Ignorance and intolerance are not the same. Maybe somebody who referred, for example, to Chelsea Manning as a "he" did so for no other reason than Chelsea Manning is still biologically male; and the "he" reference was made with no intent to deny or admonish her right to identify as female.
IIRC, there were no posts suggesting that people who identify as the opposite gender should be outcast, or jailed, or prevented from expressing themselves, or prevented from physically altering their genitals to match their gender identity, etc... THAT would equate to intolerance (which is okay to express here too; I just haven't seen it in this thread).
As for Norsworthy, I think "adequate medical care" is debatable. She has been given hormone therapy, anti-depressants, counseling, and such. And, Norsworthy won't die without the surgery. In that regard, it is an elective procedure, though some doctors and transgender activists would argue that anything less than the surgery is not the "highest standard of treatment available" and is therefore not adequate.
Norsworthy was convicted of murder, so she is legally guilty of taking another person's life. Regardless of the debate over what the mission of the US prison system should be, I think it's going too far to demand she be given the surgery by the Corrections Department. I do understand why you might feel differently.
The way the Justice Department statement is worded, a confessed convicted murderer on death row could claim to have always identified as a woman years into his (or her, whichever suits your sensitivities) sentence, claim that he (or she) is experiencing internal pain and conflict about it, and very possibly be deemed entitled to gender reassignment treatment and surgery. That too is imprudent, in many ways, in my opinion.
Intolerance exists here at Mock, for sure. It exists everywhere. But I don't see the responses in this thread as indicative of intolerance. Different perspectives, I guess.
There are differences of opinion about transgenders and gender dysphoria, even amongst the medical professionals. So, it's not surprising to me that there would be differences of opinion amongst Mock members too.
And, I don't think referring to someone who has a penis as "he", even though the person identifies more as a female, is a sure sign of "intolerance". It's confusing and the topic is rather new ground for the general public. What's considered "appropriate" terminology is in flux. Ignorance and intolerance are not the same. Maybe somebody who referred, for example, to Chelsea Manning as a "he" did so for no other reason than Chelsea Manning is still biologically male; and the "he" reference was made with no intent to deny or admonish her right to identify as female.
IIRC, there were no posts suggesting that people who identify as the opposite gender should be outcast, or jailed, or prevented from expressing themselves, or prevented from physically altering their genitals to match their gender identity, etc... THAT would equate to intolerance (which is okay to express here too; I just haven't seen it in this thread).
As for Norsworthy, I think "adequate medical care" is debatable. She has been given hormone therapy, anti-depressants, counseling, and such. And, Norsworthy won't die without the surgery. In that regard, it is an elective procedure, though some doctors and transgender activists would argue that anything less than the surgery is not the "highest standard of treatment available" and is therefore not adequate.
Norsworthy was convicted of murder, so she is legally guilty of taking another person's life. Regardless of the debate over what the mission of the US prison system should be, I think it's going too far to demand she be given the surgery by the Corrections Department. I do understand why you might feel differently.
The way the Justice Department statement is worded, a confessed convicted murderer on death row could claim to have always identified as a woman years into his (or her, whichever suits your sensitivities) sentence, claim that he (or she) is experiencing internal pain and conflict about it, and very possibly be deemed entitled to gender reassignment treatment and surgery. That too is imprudent, in many ways, in my opinion.