Posted on 01/09/2010 4:00:58 PM PST by Tamar Rush
With only a sweeping statement that "it proves that she is mentally unstable" and no further expounding upon that stement, I can only conclude that, yes, it is a knee-jerk automatic connection.
My conclusion comes from a deep belief that we are all, every single one of us, multidimensional beings who all at our core (our soul, if you prefer), encompass both male and female traits. You -- not just this particular physical focus as this particular life but rather the true you which transcends flesh and physical form but has taken and is taking many, many of these journeys into physical form as both male and female -- hold traits of both, for in the end they are one. They are but different sides of the same soul, the same multidimensional, multifaceted You.
I see this life I have in this particular time and place as a male to be but only one physical focus of mine, out of many. Other of my focuses may even be occurring within this same time frame and place.
Having said that, I know that these are concepts that traditional Christians have a hard time accepting. But it is what I believe -- I consider it more of a knowing than a belief, to be honest.
I also believe that we each choose our own life journeys beforehand, with awareness of the situation and anticipation of the challenges that may arise in the life experience so chosen.
So, to take a particular scenario: Assume that each soul must incorporate into its gestalt of experience, lives as both male and female entities. Assume that a particular soul (or entity) has, up until now, lived many physical lives as a female but none yet as a male. So, there will be some inherent challenges in "switching off" that portion of oneself -- one's whole self -- in fulfilling a role as a male. Assume that the challenge proves to be one that is overwhelming, and a strong desire to express the more familiar (and previously emphasized) female traits takes over.
I can see, and feel empathy for, this type of scenario. Previous to surgery and drugs being available to "change sexes" as it were, this particular person would most likely simply continue to suffer with the feeling of being trapped in the wrong type of body. The surgery -- whatever you feel about humans' attempts to crudely change a woman into a "man" or vice versa -- is nonetheless viewed by the conflicted person as being the closest approximation possible. So some such people go through with it.
Perhaps even on a deeply subconscious level they also choose to do this type of procedure precisely to get people into thinking about the true nature of the reality of all human entities, which each and all encompass both male and female, yin vs. yang, aggressive vs. empathetic, analytical vs. intuitional.
(Some of these ideas are expressed in the book "The Nature of the Psyche: Its Human Expression," among many others.)
I choose to feel some empathy for such people rather than condemn them.
Oops, “stement” = “statement”
Because it is nutso talk.
In all that nonsense you didn't answer this simple question.
People who intentionally chop off body parts are normal in your world?
You would take financial advice from a person who had their eyeball removed so they could better masquerade as a pirate?
As for your previous question, I ignored it because it is ridiculous. A pirate? Do you really consider that to be an equivalent metaphor? Seriously? And do you actually equate the deeply-felt desire that these people feel to become the opposite gender as simply a desire to "chop off a body part," equivalent to a person who would chop off an arm for no apparent reason? I hope that you can recognize that there is a lot more going on, and going into the decision, than that.
A normal and rational person? I bet there are billions more of me than there are of you.
Yes, I think that the pirate analogy is valid as both actions in MY opinion prove the person who would lose a body part for a fantasy is nuts. This person is still a man just one who is now physically as screwed up as they are mentally and have no business being put into a position of public trust.
There are also billions more Muslims out there than there are of me.
Irrelevant.
The muslims are a cult of murderers who need to be eradicated. You are harmless, just nuts. There is a difference.
After reading your posts I wouldn’t want you in a position of public trust any more than this deviant. Fantasies are all fine and good but someone who actually believes the fantasies should be in no position of making decisions for others.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
Ok, fine.
OMG, this “it” is a mentally deranged FREAK! Was-a-manada Simpson looks like either Popeye in drag or that foul-mouthed b@tch Kathy Griffin. That photo is prettied up — how DARE they deliberately use a flattering photo? He/she/it actually looks like either Popeye in drag or that foul-mouthed b@tch Kathy Griffin. This “thing” is complete screw-up both physically and in the head. Had a chop-a-dick-offa-me and self-mutilated its body in order to live some pathetic, sick, deluded fantasy life. Totally foul and disgusting!! Does she ride a boy’s or a girl’s bicycle? I mean, what’s next? Do we put a kleptomaniac in charge of the Treasury?! An anorexic as the Surgeon General? A schizophrenic heading up the ATF? A fake pirate with one eyeball removed as a chief advisor? I can’t believe this!! This freakazoid who didn’t like her God-assigned-hardware is not a woman, it’s just a mutilated man and he/she is very seriously mentally ill! And anyone who thinks differently or shows any empathy whatsoever for this mental-case deviant FREAK should not be trusted!!
There, was that an appropriately Christian enough reaction for you?
Dude, if you can't laugh at a guy who cuts his own genitals off, who can you laugh at?
Mitchell Simpson was offended by his genitalia so he chopped it off and masquerades as a woman. You thinking this is acceptable behavior for a person put in the public trust shows that you have poor judgment as well. I point it out and you start acting more foolish.
Get help.
“Offended by his genitalia” is quite a gross simplification and misrepresentation of a deeply felt desire to become, in flesh, more in line with one’s alignment in spirit.
As for my acting foolish, I merely cut-and-pasted most of the previous posts from you and your cohorts into a single paragraph. Given that, you may want to reexamine your assessment of who needs help.
A masquerade is a masquerade. He is still a man. A man who makes poor decisions.
Given that, you may want to reexamine your assessment of who needs help.
Reexamining ..........................
Done.
Still you.
My “libertarian” tolerance for his/her/its figurative fist stops where it meets my chin. Had it simply been a matter of personal expression that likely would have been the end of it. That you are more accepting of perversion, neurosis, and/or madness is your prerogative.
In the case of my example however, it only served as advance notice of the chaos to come. It wasn’t enough that we were “instructed” to tolerate this persons indulgence, nothing short of complete and utter acceptance was demanded.
It wasn’t long before Paul/Paula was wearing the most outlandish and inappropriate attire, which of course elicited comments. Those comments sparked confrontations in which there was only one winner - Paul/Paula. The resentment festered and several folks sought transfers or other assignments to escape the whole sordid affair.
What broke the “camels back” was the restroom facilities. Paul/Paula decided that he/she/it was now entitled to use the Ladies room. Since Paul/Paula still had male plumbing, using the Mens room was the proper choice.
The women revolted. They didn’t want Paul/Paula in the restroom when they were in there and everyone else (except Paul/Paula) agreed. A threat of a discrimination suit (by the women) brought threats of a retaliation suit (by Paul/Paula). HR finally talked Paul/Paula into using the public restroom on the 1st floor but only after every shred of mutual goodwill had been destroyed.
As I said earlier the saving grace is that he/she/it usually calls in “sick”. When he/she/it is at work the tasks that were once suitable are now “too physically demanding” and routinely pawned off onto the male co-workers - another source of resentment. This persons attitude is decidedly worse than any time in memory. I can’t believe that this is truly what this person wanted. When I look at Paul/Paula (believe me it is a rare event!) I see a profoundly miserable person who has literally severed the cord to happiness and sanity. Paul/Paula is a miserable mess and misery loves company!
I am fortunate enough to have a job where I am not bound to my office. It (And he/she/it) would drive me crazy otherwise...
Done. Still you.
Aw, how cute. And so very, very, shallow.
Again, I merely copied-and-pasted the posts of others here, so if you want to call those words "foolish" and "in need of help," then I have no quarrel with that.
Yes, I can definitely see how that would be a difficult situation.
And I also admit that I would have difficulty if one of my parents or a sibling were to decide to undergo a transgender operation.
Still, I choose empathy over condemnation for such people.
I don’t care if a person cuts themselves up but I do care if they are put in a position of public trust.
This is so simple and you cannot understand it.
I wouldn’t hire either one of you as he has poor judgment and you simply appear to be unable to grasp the simplest things.
Good night and good luck with your many empathetic lives.
Why doesn’t HR simply fire her?
1. Probably shaky grounds for “cause” but moreover...
2. Political Correctness is alive and well at my workplace.
My best guess is that they are frightened of a sexual discrimination lawsuit. Perhaps they are secretly hoping that he/she/it will leave on its own...
It is not simple, Eaker. It is simplistic.
There is a significant difference between the two words.
We have differing beliefs and will never see eye to eye, and I acknowledge that my reincarnational ideas do not square with many or most of the Freeper community (although I don’t really like the term “reincarnation,” as most people’s idea of it fails to encompass the entire concept that I am talking about).
I guess to close out our conversation, I will simply reiterate that I feel that if a person — transgendered or not — can successfully perform in this public position, then I have no problem with it. I DO have a problem with appointment of such a person to this type of post if it is done primarily or solely to say, “Look, I hired the first transgender (or whatever “first” it may be) to this position!” I suspect that that might be the case here, and that would be unfortunate. But I will also reiterate that I see no good in condemning such a person as a freak, pervert, deviant, or similar words as used by others in this thread. The words that I compiled from others here and quoted in my post strike me as repugnant. Though you may mock it, I will still choose empathy over the former.
I acknowledge that my spiritual beliefs do not fit into any specific, traditional “church” category (though I was raised Lutheran), are difficult to convey properly in a few forum posts, and encompass many “bookfuls” of information, including that of Jesus and the Bible as well as what some would term New Age (I don’t like that term either) and Eastern thought.
So, given our different backgrounds of thought, we shall disagree, and I have no problem with that. I only ask that it is done without further unnecessary insult by either side.
OK, good night, Eaker.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.