IS COMPROMISE IMPOSSIBLE?

      I saw another post from a friend today about Canada having a regulation that prohibits transgendereds from boarding a plane if "the passenger does not appear to be of the gender indicated on the identification he or she presents" and of course this has the "trans community" up in arms over discrimination and whatnot (even though there is currently no example on record of a transgendered being denied a flight under this regulation). It's not stated explicitly, but I'm guessing this would have something to do with identity theft or some other form of fraud. As a commenter pointed out, if your picture showed you as dark-skinned but you appeared white as snow to the boarding agent, they're not going to let you on board the plane. As I've mentioned before, transgenderism is where my line of acceptance is. I don't accept it as just another line in the broad spectrum of gender expression. Transgenderism sounds like a mental disease and should be treated accordingly.

      Now, don't get me wrong, I understand and grasp the concept of gender expression and how it might vary throughout the population. Looking at samples of my music tastes would surely confirm that I am not a typically gendered person with regards to stereotypes for my male sex. I know that men and women as a population range in their expression of masculinity and femininity and I'm cool with that because hey, vive la difference! Transgenderism crosses the line for me because of the reality denial. Again, he/she; boy/girl; man/woman; etc. are identifiers based on assigned sex (i.e. the sex you were born as) and not identifiers based on feelings or identity. But I'm rehashing and digressing...

       The compromise feels rather simple here and I will base it using myself as an analogue. I hate formal wear. I really do. I find it pretentious and physically uncomfortable to wear. I also find wearing suits to be uncomfortable psychologically...I don't feel like myself in them, more like a phony. Suits carry all that baggage of perceived wealth and status and the history that goes along with that perceived wealth and status. I'm a commoner...a working  man of the working class. I have no desire to appear as anything other than my station. However, when I attend a wedding or a funeral, I am expected to wear a suit and dress shoes and not the polo shirt, khakis, and sneakers I prefer. I put on the suit and dress shoes because I know the wedding or the funeral is not about me, but about the family of the deceased or the couple to be married (and even when it's my wedding, unless the bride-to-be is like me formality-wise, I will dress as formally as she expects for the occasion because a wedding, even my own, is not about me). I will put up with feeling uncomfortable in both the clothes and my skin for a day because I'm not an asshole douche who insists on making a scene for my own selfish preferences which brings me back to the transgendereds...

       If you're a transgendered person and your passport or ID has your sex listed as male, wear a fucking suit for a couple of hours and be uncomfortable for a few hours both physically and in your own skin and stop inconveniencing everyone with your selfish preferences. Consider it "gender formalwear" that you take out for "special" occasions. It's not that hard to do and it in no way compromises who you are or feel like you are and if it does, if you truly could not bear to wear stereotypically sex appropriate clothing for a few hours, tell me again how your condition is not that of a mental disorder. Stop making it all about you.

       And of course, a commenter named Jason did make just such an observation only to get the self-appointed thread minder, Christin, to chime in with this response:

That is not an option for some trans people, Jason. Look up “transsexual standards of care” and “transsexual real life test.”

Besides, being forced to “put (one’s) man pants back on for 8 hours” is an indignity… a discriminatory human rights violation.

       Really? A human rights violation? Overboard much? At least Christin says "some trans people" but that doesn't help her (his?) argument that transgenderism is simply another variant in the broad spectrum of gender expression and not an indicator of a mental disorder.

       Maybe it comes down to this: While I feel it is wrong for the majority to oppress the minority, I am not so easily persuaded that the minority owes no respect toward that majority. And if you're a minority of a minority, being mindful the majority opinion ought to be more of a priority. I look at it mathematically and to keep it sexual, homosexuals (and bisexuals) make up 3½% of the population in the United States as of April 2011 (I honestly thought it was 10-15%. I'm genuinely surprised) and transgendereds at 0.3% (or, for the sake of argument, about a tenth of the gay population). The question you have to ask yourself is when does the number grow small enough so as to become burdensome on the general population when demanding accommodation? And this can apply to any type of minority status such as religion, allergies, diet, and physical handicaps.

       Say you have a high school comprised of 1,000 students spread out over four grades (in other words, about 250 students per grade). This would mean, in this imaginary school, 962 students would be straight; 35 students would be gay/lesbian/bisexual (8 or 9 per grade); and 3 students would be transgendered (not even all grades would have one). Should those three students' demands for accommodation trump the expectations of the remaining 997 students? Would those three students be placing an undue burden on the remaining 997 in so doing? Is asking for conformity/accommodation from these three students an undue burden placed upon them by the rule-making body?

       I guess what I'm asking is, at what point does not being burdensome fall upon you and not the community at large? At what point must you do the accommodating and not the community? At what point does communal interest trump self interest? And how much self interest should be tolerated by the communal interest?

I GUESS BETTER NOW THAN THEN...

      Fuck! She changed her privacy settings! My days of passively cyberstalking Digby on Facebook are over. For a long time now, she had her profile set mostly to be viewable by "friends of friends" of which, I was. I deleted her back in about March 2011 and only then discovered this delightful exploit in her settings which allowed me to more calmly decompress after her leaving where I work. Having that access I guess could be likened to a nicotine patch that if I didn't have, I would've been considerably crazier in response.

      I was like that when she first deleted me back in 2008. This was before one of Facebook's controversial revamps - the one that defaulted everyone's privacy settings to "friends of friends" - so I lost access to her pictures and posts totally and I got quite obsessive watching her friends for any new picture posts with Digby in them. It was not a fun time. Eventually Digby and I reconciled and we refriended until 2011 when it all ended once and for all. I was happy to have continued access...until yesterday that is. Now all I can see is whatever her current profile picture is. I can't see her infuriating posts either (infuriating because she would lament for things that I knew damned well I could provide or was spouting philosophies which were exactly what I was doing to no avail...I'll consider posting some day...I have to remove her identity from the posts but leave enough to show it is her). It's all gone. Sigh...but better now, about six months after she quit than six days.

      She finally clicked on the privacy settings tab. Motherfucker! I got some good pictures over the months though :-)

SONGS THAT CAN JUST GO AWAY, part IX

"What's So Bad About Feeling Good?" by Ben Lee

This song bugs me because of the phony crowd chanting that happens at around the 2.50 mark. Maybe in a live recording that might be okay, but in a studio recording? It sounds so ridiculously contrived. It's like scripted spontaneity or committee-approved fun...it's just wrong.

And it's not the only one. "Give You Hell" by All American Rejects is another example (about the 2.35 mark). I'm sure you can think of others...

MONEY IN FILM (a.k.a. HEY, IS THAT A...?)

      I had my VCR reconnected recently to help out my Best Friend with something. After I was finished, I remembered I had a recording of a Harold Lloyd silent film called Safety Last, a film which you are likely aware of solely from this still:

Safety Last starring Harold Lloyd (1923)

      The movie is actually entertaining and is the first silent film I ever sincerely watched (I remember as a kid, a chain restaurant called the Ground Round would show Charlie Chaplin films throughout the evening but I didn't watch them for more than a few seconds at a time). It has moments of genuine humor and is engaging to watch if only for glimpses of life and fashion in 1920s America. The main character, conveniently named Harry, works as a sales clerk in a department store for a whole $15 a week.

55 hour workweek

There's a scene showing a "Businessman's Lunch" in a local diner for 50¢:

      How enviable, right? But I liked the minor attentions to detail like the fact that real money was used in the film. (I guess it became illegal to show real money at some point - that would always take me out of films, even as a kid, to see obviously fake money being used on screen) In the film, Harry moves to the city to become a big shot in order to impress his monumentally stupid girlfriend (who is never given a name - referred to only as "The Girl"). He never makes it but tries to convince her otherwise by buying her expensive things in an effort to show off. In the scene with the lunch, just after he was paid, he went to a local jewelers and purchased a platinum necklace for $15.50. Harry pulled out five dimes from his pocket:

Safety Last - dimes

      How appealing to a collector to see in his hand, three Mercury and two Barber dimes (1916-1945 and 1892-1916 respectively). He spent his entire paycheck plus these five dimes. A course from the Businessman's Lunch would be shown disappearing with each dime paid. There were three notes in the pay envelope which I can only imagine were $5 bills, but no shot was ever clear enough to show what type they were. However...

      Later in the film, The Girl comes to the city to see how her impressive boyfriend lives. Shenanigans ensue. She first spies Harry leaving the General Manager's office (he was being reprimanded for being only in shirt sleeves on the sales floor - the scandal!) and dummy thinks he's actually a manager. She wants to see "his" office. Harry makes excuses until he sees the G.M. leaving his office and then offers her a quick look. In the office, Harry absent-mindedly pushes a button summoning an assistant. Wanting to further impress his girlfriend, he drops a $1 bill into the garbage, making sure the assistant sees it so that he will be in on the gag and then orders him bombastically to remove the garbage at once. The assistant starts to leave when Harry calls him back for a piece of paper he missed and Harry snatches the $1 bill back as the assistant picks up the piece of paper :-)

Safety Last - Silver Certificate

      That's an 1899 series $1 Silver Certificate (also known as the "Black Eagle Note"), the current series at the time this movie was produced. It is also of the large-sized paper currency which was replaced by our current-sized notes in 1929 (see comparison of the two note sizes here). It's also visible in the garbage can:

Worth about $13.40 today

And the winking exchange:

"Pretend I'm the boss." --- "Gotcha!"

      So in addition to being a fun film to watch from the bygone silent film era, it also provides some nominal bonus entertainment for numismatists who almost certainly wish they could've lived in an era when what is now collectible coin and currency was simply money to buy things with.

THOUGHTS I NORMALLY KEEP IN MY HEAD, part X

      At work last night, we were wondering why earth tones look better on guys and bright and cheery colors look better on girls. I suggested that maybe it's related to sexual dimorphism in animals where the male is brightly colored and the female blends in, but in reverse.

      The males need to be covered/dressed in earth tones in order to hunt effectively and blend in to the scenery to protect their camp from intruders. The male shows his prowess with the females by having them dress in bright and very visible colors. These arrogant displays act as proof to other females how capable a man he is.

"Look how visibly my women can dress and still go unharmed! With me you will always be safe and fed!"

VARIOUS UPDATES REGARDING MY STUPID HEALTH...

      I had no idea the daily recommended intake of fiber was so high. You're supposed to be getting at least 25 grams of the stuff daily. Thankfully bananas are both high in fiber and cheap so I've been using them to supplement my diet in addition to making sure my bread is always whole wheat (not that I eat white bread anymore - though it's fantastic when toasted) so that every meal is sufficiently fibrous. As much as it makes me feel like an old man that I'm concerning myself with my fiber intake, I can't argue with the bloodless results...plus, I'm sure having two bananas a day is also good for me.

      I referenced a technique from a thread on Reddit last month about how to clear up a stuffy nose without medicine. I've been forcing myself to breathe solely through my nose for a good two weeks now. I think my body has finally realized that I'm no longer playing. The first few nights of doing this, I would be holding my breath for a painfully long time three or more times before falling asleep...but I woke up breathing through my nose, not my mouth. I'm noticing I'm sneezing less and possibly resting better. I have not had a sneezing fit since December 20th though I've had an itchy nose the past two days (left nostril Wednesday, right nostril on Thursday...I'm still convinced my body hates me) but neither day erupted into sneezing fits. I don't want to believe that it's this simple...it couldn't be this simple...but, results...

I ACTUALLY LIKE THIS SHIT, part XXXII

"Sweet Pea" by Amos Lee

Does liking this song really need any justification? I think not. The only justification that may be in order is whether or not it actually belongs in this music category or if it should be a part of a new series I'm considering: "IF YOU DON'T LIKE THIS SONG, I DON'T THINK I CAN TALK TO YOU ANYMORE" :-)

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.

SONGS THAT CAN JUST GO AWAY, part VIII

"Whataya Want From Me?" by Adam Lambert

I had no idea the singer of this song was on American Idol. This is actually the first time I'm seeing who did this song. It plays at work what feels like once a night every night. There's nothing technically wrong with the song but as soon as I hear those opening chords, I want the next 3½ minutes to disappear and while those 3½ minutes do eventually disappear, it just takes 3½ minutes to do so...unfortunately.

LANGUAGE POLICE...

      Language evolves. It always has. It's the nature of the beast. Before I get into my rant, enjoy a stark contrast of then and now with the Lord's Prayer. Every iteration is in English by the way.


Circa 11th century -- Fæder ure þu þe eart on heofonum; si þin nama gehalgod to becume þin rice gewurþe ðin willa on eorðan swa swa on heofonum. Urne gedæghwamlican hlaf syle us todæg and forgyf us ure gyltas swa swa we forgyfað urum gyltendum and ne gelæd þu us on costnunge ac alys us of yfele. Soþlice.

A.D. 1258 -- Fadir our in heuene, haleeweide beota thi neume, cuman thi kinderiche, thi wille beoth idon in heune and in erthe. The euerych dawe bried gif ous thilk dawe. And worzif ure dettes as vi vorsifen ure dettoures. And lene ous nought into temptation. Bette delvvor of unval.


A.D. 1300 -- Fadir our in hevene, Halwewyd by thi name, thi kingdom come. Thy wille be done as in hevene in erthe. Oure urche days bred give us today. And forgive us our detes, as we forgive our detoures. And lede us not into temptation. Bote delyvere us of yvel.


A.D. 1582 -- Our Father which art in heaven, sanctified by thy name. Let thy kingdom come. Thy wil be done as in heaven and earth also. Give us this day our super substantial bread. And led us not into temptation. But deliver us from evil.


A.D. 1611 -- Our Father which is in heaven, hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, in earth as it is in heaven. Biue us this day our dayly bread. And forgive our debtors. And leade us not into temptation, but deliver from evil. For thine is the kingdome, and the power and the glory for ever.


A.D. 1789 -- Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. For thine is the Kingdom and the Power and the Glory, forever and ever. Amen.


A.D. 1970 -- Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name. Your kingdom come. Your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our sins, as we forgive those who sin against us. Save us from the time of trial, and deliver us from the Evil. For the Kingdom, Power and the Glory, are yours now and forever. Amen.

     It is a varied and many-splendored thing as well as a wonderful accidental service of Christian missionaries who so dutifully translated the Bible into its local languages. In some cases, the only written records we have of a language have come from such translations. (see Gothic) Linguists I am sure are eternally grateful for their efforts.

     But the point is, things change. Let them change. I don't see why people to this day get up in arms when a kid uses "retarded" as a synonym for "stupid"; "gay" as a synonym for "stupid" or "lame"; and "faggot" as a synonym for a "wuss" or anyone who's making lame (gay?) excuses as to why he will not be a part of a group activity or demand. The opponents say these are "hurtful words" but are they? At one time, sure. But today's generations, while preserving the words as kinds of insults, wish for them to be more generally applied and no longer necessarily referring to their original targets. Should we not be encouraging this trend rather than attempt to preserve the more hateful meanings?

      Even the words "dumb", "stupid", "lame", etc. all once meant something far more specific but are now more generally applied insults and have been so for such a long time that to hear the words applied more originally sounds odd to a listener. In some cases, the meanings of words have changed so completely as to be not recognizable.

      I encourage this trend. Based on the way it is used today, I can't help but wonder if "nigger" will ever come to mean something benign. Perhaps in the future, and something tells me long after we're gone, the word could mean something as innocuous as "neighbor" or "friend" (especially one who goes back a ways or who has shared critical experiences with you). One can only hope. And for those of you who worry about losing the "fun" words, I can't ever see racism and hatred ever dying...it's just too human. We'll come up with all new words to spread the hate. Human ingenuity cannot be stopped!

WHAT AM I PAYING YOU FOR?

      It was never a formal New Year's Resolution, more my usual organization of data being applied to a new area. I finally got around to organizing my Roth-IRA statements of the past several years and put them on a single 4-column ledger page to see the changes in valuations. What struck me was not so much the precipitous fall in the IRA's value from the Lehman Bros. collapse in Septmember 2008 to about March 2009 and another good-sized dip which occurred over a several month period last year but the fact that my IRA's financial adviser, a man who actually draws a fee for keeping this account in my name did nothing to preserve its value during this time...nothing at all. What the fuck?

      I'm not saying he should be a dictator and buy/sell the IRA's shares without telling me (though in this instance it would have made him a financial hero) but he could have called or sent an e-mail advising me (after all, he is an adviser) the benefits of moving my holdings into cash for a while, but I got nothing. And before anyone tells me that I was supposed to call my adviser to suggest this myself, might I remind you that I am paying him an annual fee to be the account's financial adviser. If I am supposed to be doing all the research and calling in to have shares sold/purchased myself...what do I need him for?

      Now, I'm not expecting miraculous timing on his part, but even some off timing would mean my Roth-IRA would have considerably more value today than it actually does.

       I have this feeling that if I were to complain, the conversation would go exactly like this one from the Simpsons when Bart employed Milhouse to be the night watchman for a run-down factory he had purchased in a police auction for a dollar. Bart leaves for the night and returns to a collapsed factory in the morning. He then exclaims to his friend:


                    Bart: Milhouse, I thought you were the night watchman!
                    Milhouse: I was watching. First it started falling, then it fell down.

Grrr......

I ACTUALLY LIKE THIS SHIT, part XXXI

Another entry for this technically abandoned series. I dare you to not have positive feelings while listening to this catchy, bubble-gummy song.


"1000 Ships" by Rachel Platten

I'm actually glad to be posting this video now rather than when I first thought of it. I could have sworn the video I had first seen was different from this one. Watch it, it actually tells an engrossing tale without the use of any dialog whatsoever. Feel-good song with a feel-good ending. Bop, bop, bop, bop, bop... :-)

THOUGHTS I NORMALLY KEEP IN MY HEAD, part IX

      I deal with setbacks like anyone else in this world...through fantasy, and one thing I've noticed is that as my initial anger cools, the fantasies themselves get dealt with in increasingly cruel manners until I've finally tired of the whole exercise. Whereas, at the beginning of the setback, when the anger is still fiery and passionate, the fantasies can be quite physically violent, impulsive, and ill-concerned with the consequences of such actions. But while the fire dies out, its cause remains and festers allowing the second-tier fantasies to explore more "creative" solutions to my frustrations. They are oftentimes psychologically terrifying in nature, complex, well-thought out, and teeming with poetic justice.

      For those of you who actually worry about me, I am not actually dangerous because my fantasies are always supernaturally based...even the initial passionate ones. Reality is what I'm trying to escape so reality-based themes are not fun for me. Fuck guns and knives and poison. How lame. I want truly awesome and terrifying forms of self-expression and because that is and will always be impossible, I remain a harmless, cowardly bug...that is, unless necromancy and/or alchemy à la Full Metal Alchemist turns out to be both real and exploitable. And if that's the case, opt to be a victim of my impulsive magic anger...it'll be over quicker ;-)

I'M READY FOR DOLLAR COINS

      Recently the Obama administration announced that the production of the Presidential Dollar Coin series would be halted, limiting its production solely to proofs and business strikes for collectors only (READ: you will now be able to buy a dollar for more than a dollar). This is being done ostensibly to save the Federal Government $50 million a  year. Yes, you read that right...fifty million dollars from a government whose budget is over one trillion dollars per year. That's chump change and the rationale is that all these dollar coins being produced are just sitting in warehouses at cost to taxpayers because they are not being used (except in major transit hubs where they are dispensed by machines as change). Currently over 1.4 billion dollar coins are being warehoused and it is estimated that at current rates of consumption, that it would take about ten years to exhaust the supply.

TOLERANCE IS A ONE-WAY STREET...

      A friend of mine posted a link to this anecdote on Tumblr. The rough story is the allegedly homophobic dad who fears his son may be gay based on his desires to buy an "unmanly" videogame and play said videogame with a purple controller. The father would rather his son play a more "manly" shooter game with a regularly colored controller, threatening to hit him if he kept insisting over his father's objections. The older brother to this boy who was buying the game for his younger brother as a gift stood up to his father telling him that he was buying this game and controller as a gift for his brother because it's what he wants and if he (the father) was going to hit anyone, then it should be him (the older brother). At this point, the father leaves in disgust and the boy is assured by a girl that she likes the blue controller and shooter games (that is, atypically of other girls) and that "[t]here’s nothing wrong with what you like. Even if it’s different that what people think you should."

      Now, this is what I'm left thinking (aside from the desire to call bullshit on this story...it feels too perfectly crafted...like propaganda), why is tolerance always a one-way street? I really get the feeling that calls for tolerance are more like softened bullying tactics rather than genuine appeals to humanity.

      For those of you who must know, my personal opinion of this is that I do not support the father of this story...but I also don't support the girl in this story either. She's just as douchey to me. And the thing is you can't really give me the line about how the father's intolerance is worse because of the threat of violence or because it makes his son feel bad. The father's behavior only seems worse, I think, because its destructiveness is more immediately apparent. The girl's behavior only seems better, I think, because its destructiveness is more abstract.

      Instead, I try to look at this anecdote by its generalities. The mind becomes clouded and biased when presented with such specifics. The anecdote seems to boil down to conformity versus nonconformity and schooling behavior versus individualism and like any advice, each side can be both positive and negative depending on context.

      The father superficially seems to represent the conformist/schooling angle, urging his son to be a part of the group. Evolution readily enforces these behaviors and they are entirely appropriate in stable environments. Outward expressions of nonconformity are bad in fairly uniform areas. It can make you a target. After all, the tallest blade of grass is the first to be cut by the mower: it's the price of standing out. Individualistic self-expression is a risky choice if you are not prepared or able to defend your choices. I think of nature videos. The hawk goes after a flock but can't attack the flock directly without getting pummeled by collisions with the other birds. However, harassing the flock long enough eventually causes one of the birds to make a mistake and get separated. The separated one can now easily be targeted and killed. One could argue in support of the father (despite his alleged methods) that he is warning his son that this decision will result in him being separated from the flock leaving him exposed to bullies or ostracism. You could argue he is being protective and not necessarily homophobic. Maybe the father has misjudged his son, but he might also know that his son is not strong enough (emotionally and/or mentally and/or physically) to defend himself for making the choice, intentional or not, to leave the protection of the flock with his nonconformist behavior.

      The older brother defending his younger brother and the girl offering support seem superficially in the right and certainly would be in unstable environments where adaptation to change is rewarded rather than punished. Their rectitude, however, is dependent on their local environment. This is the unknown from this anecdote. Will this boy be the trendsetter (or another participant in an already-changing trend)? Is he a reflection of changing times and the passage of the "old way" into history? Is it necessarily a good thing to present this boy with the idea that the world is wrong and he is right? I think it's a good thing to try new ideas in light of the failure of the old. But trying new things when the old way is still working just fine or when there is only a hint that it is ultimately unsustainable opens oneself up to ridicule and being ignored because the issue isn't pressing. Think of our use of fossil fuels for instance. No matter how logically one may argue that changing slowly now would be cheaper in the long run, it comes across more as inconvenience because it's not a pressing issue. This idea that exists in our minds that does not let us change until we have to. As smart as we are, we don't have the influence over the older parts of our brain to overcome this.

      I'm not less guilty of this. I'm tolerant of variation within a society during stable times, but in times of chaos, expect us to conform and act as a whole against that threat. I want a balance of our competitive and cooperative natures. I want us to learn about both so that either way of doing things is comfortable as the times demand. Let's be supportive and play uncompetitively just for fun, but I also want to know that when the shit hits the fan, that we're capable of playing to win. Superficial variation is a luxury afforded to times of peace.

      So the message the writer of that anecdote concludes with, "They check out and leave, and all I can think is how awesome big brother is, how sweet little brother is, and how Dad ought to be ashamed for trying to make his son any other way." is wrong in my opinion. It's sweet, I don't deny that but I don't think that's the message we should be taking from this story. There's a missing element to what was going on in it: context. If the boy will suffer no consequences for his self-expression, if he is merely one more drop of water in a flood of change, then the father should indeed feel ashamed; but if the boy will face consequences, if he is indeed the tallest blade of grass, the older brother/girl should feel ashamed for effectively feeding him to the lions, the girl especially since she is least likely to be there to protect him from the negative results of her encouragement (whereas his brother may be able to defend him...at least for a time).

      I know this story is being used as a parable against shaming homosexuality, but I think it far more important to remind those who intend to buck the trend (or who are acting in a way which will buck the trend) that the road will not be easy for them. They may get lucky and have it easy, but if they are on the forefront of a seachange, then expect to suffer though your sacrifice may make the road easier for those who will follow. Pretending that it will be otherwise when encouraging another is a shitty thing to do to someone who wants to be different.