I HAVE A LINE

      I don't know what I really am politically. Am I conservative or liberal? Sites tend to peg me as centrist which would seem to fit information I've been learning about my personality type in that I prefer harmonizing with people over exerting my will. So I guess if conservative is red, and liberal, blue; that would make me purple. I would have to say I'm a bluish-purple. How blue? I don't know, but I do know when the waters get too blue, I'm out. Same for the red, though I wonder if I have a greater tolerance for the red waters than the blue.



      The comments section on this article about a Girl Scout named Taylor who posted a YouTube video requesting a boycott to not buy Girl Scout cookies in protest of a Colorado chapter allowing a gender dysphoric boy named Bobby to join the organization because he feels like and believes he is a girl to the point of his mother referring to him as "her daughter" and using feminine pronouns in reference to him. I personally think you would be hard-pressed to find anyone who would suggest that members of the Girl Scouts had anything other than vaginas. Expectations of this organization are that it is for girls of the XX type, bearing vaginae and uteri, not people who feel like/believe they are girls regardless of the hand nature has dealt them. However, reading the comments section is an adventure in "Holy shit, I am clearly not a liberal."

      Now, before I go on I want to make it clear that I am not hating on the boy although apparently I am because I refuse to refer to him using "she" and "her". I think the Girl Scout is a bigot and I think the mother of this dysphoric boy is an asshole for sowing discord. How about the girl airs her grievances privately through the organization itself and if she can't find satisfaction, she takes the honorable route and resigns? And how about the mother of Bobby be supportive in his disorder (it's called Gender Identity Disorder, so shut up) but remind him that perhaps maybe the Girl Scouts are not for you rather than she being an attention whore and upsetting the local community with her demands that her "daughter" be included because to not include "her" would be discriminatory or some other bullshit. I actually don't care about Bobby per se. In human populations there are a wide variety of people and yes, there are some boys who like what are typically girl things and girls who like what are typically boy things and I'm cool with that because that's basically irrelevant. However, you're taking it too far in my opinion when you refuse to bow to reality.

       It is important to remind anyone reading this that Gender Identity Disorder is not equatable with homosexuality. Even if there is an increased likelihood, it is still not equatable. Bobby may be very straight, but very girly and while he may not like his penis now, when he goes through pubescence, he may feel differently but still like girly things and want to fuck uh...girly things :-) My problem is when you look at yourself, see yourself for what you are (and in Bobby's case, a male human being) and decide to behave as if this weren't so. It's that insanity that bugs me. Yet from reading the comments section, you would think me an intolerant asshole. However...

      My tolerance has its limits. English sexualized its grammatical genders a long time ago so it's very simple: he = has a penis/produces sperm; she = has a vagina/produces eggs; it = has neither or indeterminate. No more male rocks (se stan), female harps (seo hearpe), and neuter women (thæt wif)! You only have three choices and since the last one is considered offensive, stick with what you were born as being. It is delusional to say otherwise. And I don't see how being supportive of a person's delusions is necessarily a good thing. What? Because what they believe isn't hurting anyone it's any less insane? Would we be so supportive if Bobby believed himself a dog? If he believed he was from the planet Krypton? I don't think Bobby would need psychiatric treatment because of G.I.D., but if he genuinely believes he is a girl when he's not one and if he actually refers to himself using feminine pronouns, then yes, he would be in need of treatment for delusional behavior. The prevalence in the population of G.I.D. is 1 in 11,900 men and 1 in 30,400 women (why do men get such shabby DNA treatment?), that's far below that of schizophrenia (a prevalence of 7 per 1000; or an incidence of 3 in 10000 - not sure which one matters more here), but no one would ever advise catering to the delusions of a schizophrenic even if their delusions would be considered harmless so why is this particular catering acceptable? Is this an example of politics trumping medicine? Are lobbying groups like G.L.A.A.D. supportive of boys like Bobby out of fear since homosexuality was only recently taken off the books as a mental disorder? Is it possible they don't want to have any gender-related issue seen as problematic because it would hurt their cause (which is a just one by the way) to secure the civil rights of homosexuals in this country? I wonder about that and wish I could think of another example of a group vehemently defending its fringes for reasons of that nature.

      I read those comments and my reaction is basically that of, "I can't." It's my line. Perhaps it's for another generation. I feel bad for the girl and the hate heaped upon her though I revel in its hypocrisy. Many of her haters are from the same type who call out for an end to bullying in all its forms and here they are name-calling, disparaging her and her family, wishing horrible things upon her. It's a sickly and twistedly beautiful thing.

      The other recurrent theme I've found in these comment sections is this belief, never stated as such but you can put it together, this belief that all bad/evil things are taught/learned whereas all good/pure things are natural. Hate directed at the Girl Scout Taylor:
"Kids don't pull this out of their asses - that girl was taught how to hate."
and
"Typical fundamentalist mentality"
and
"Someone ship her off to a commune so she can be reprogrammed not to hate."
and
"You tell it like it is, it is truly sad that children are taught to hate."

      I'm not so sure about that. We're naturally xenophobic. If anything, we're taught NOT to hate. Our brains seek familiarity and patterns (stare at random static on your television - if you still can - or just watch this video of it instead - and you WILL see things because your brain insists on finding them, not because they are actually there) and become cautious around differences. I don't recall ever once being taught to hate, but I do remember being taught to be respectful and to be polite and to be accepting and to be tolerant so I'm not sure where this "hate is taught" comes from. Ironically, most of the hateful things I know about people, races, and ethnicities have come from programs designed to teach me how not to be hateful. I didn't know about the Asian stereotypes that they were good at math and ate dogs until I was in a class teaching us how to be more accepting. The same for a number of black stereotypes. I love the Law of Unintended Consequences!

       As for the support of this kid, it's surprisingly hard to find. The closest thing I can find is the urging to purchase more cookies in response but that's not really support for Bobby and his decision to join the Girl Scouts. In looking for examples, I keep coming up with agenda-driven things like:
"Be careful calling them 'normal' boys. That sends the message that transgendered persons are abnormal, unnatural, unacceptable. I know that was not your intention, but the term I prefer to use is 'cisgender.' (in response to another person correctly using the term normal)"
and
"To be clear, the issue at hand is not about the inclusion of trans boys (i.e. those assigned a female sex at birth), but of trans girls (those assigned male sex). While your article seems otherwise supportive, the mistaken terminology – though undoubtedly unintentional – is still disrespectful."
and
"A person with 'boy parts' who identifies as female should be referred to as she, not he."
and
"Sexual Identity is not as simple as genitalia. You do realize that Transexuals have different brains right? That its not about a want, or feelings, its actual hormones and chemicals in the brain."
and
"I'm of the opinion that only a person who is transgendered can decide for him or herself if the sex organs they've been born with match the chemicals in their heads."
and the ever-confusing
"I only have one correction to make here. A biological male who identifies as female isn't a transgender male, she's a transgender female."

       My train of thought has derailed but my stance is still the same...I can't. You're asking for too much and I'm not sure where I can go to ask questions like the one I had. One commenter on Gawker raised approximately the same issue in far fewer words only to be told how wrong he was.

Cupajo wrote: "No. He isn't a little girl. I think it's perfectly admirable that the Colorado Girl Scouts have admitted him and this Taylor girl is obviously mean-spirited and cruel (two things that the Girl Scouts tend to discourage), but let's stop with all this "gender is a state of mind" nonsense. When and if he grows up and decides to have re-assignment surgery, then I'll consider him a female. But until then, he's a boy. Regardless of what he 'self-identifies' as. I may 'self-identify' as the Ambassador From Spain, but that doesn't mean I get diplomatic plates on my car."

He stood his ground, but in the end, no one addressed whether or not the issue that believing oneself to be something they are not is grounds for acceptance or simply that of insanity.

Pucksr wrote in response to another commenter:


I attempted this search, but found very little in the way of scientific information. The first 3 results were from self-professed transgendered individuals and the rest were from social workers or were studies regarding comparative studies(which doesn't tell you much beyond statistical differences).


I do not doubt that transgendered individuals exist. I do, however, have issue with the total vagueness of definition. I also object to the concept that it automatically needs to be treated exactly like homosexuality. I have concerns that transgenderism may be related to BIID(Body Integrity Identiy Disorder). A condition where someone feels that they would be more comfortable after amputation. They both exhibit similar ethical dilemmas and solutions. The difference is that everyone feels comfortable identifying BIID as a mental illness, while very few people feel comfortable anymore identifying transgendered disorder as a mental illness.


Let me be clear, if some people with this condition are considering drastic and unnecessary surgery to improve their mental state....then that is a mental illness. That doesn't make them bad people or sick people. The desire for a man to wear a dress, put on lipstick, etc isn't a mental illness, it is simply a preference. I also think that several people who obsessively get cosmetic plastic surgery for a "perfect face" have a mental illness.

      That sounds even better. He fared little better in his responses than Cupajo, but again, stood his ground. Anyways, I don't know what I'm going for anymore so...I'm done. Commenters, get your hate on!

ADDENDUM:

Wrong, but funny