[PLUG-TALK] MRC Is this marriage right or wrong, clarification...

[Ronald Chmara]

On Feb 12, 2009, at 9:09 PM, Michael Robinson wrote:
> Despite Michael Rasmussen's comments, I did not define marriage
> as being between two people of the same biological gender.  If
> that wasn't clear, it should be now.

Gender is not biological. Sex is biological.

They are two entirely separate concepts, and constructs.

Since this is a linux list (sometimes), what you just said amounts to  
saying that "the only operating system that should run on an i386  
platform is Windows".

> Concerning the two women comment.  No, they are a man and a woman.
> If a person is biologically a man, he does not develop ovaries and
> breasts.

This is medically, and scientifically, false. Without any external  
medications or influences, biological males have experienced both, to  
the point that a common form of male "plastic" surgery is to remove  
male breast tissues.

> If a person is biologically a woman, she does not develop
> testicles and a flat chest.  There are more differences of course,
> but this is enough for now.

Also false. Not all biological women develop breasts, and there is a  
wide variety of variation in human sex organs, regardless of having  
XX or XY chromosomes (and some people, of course, can have both).

> There is a possibility of a hermaphrodite, but I would suspect that
> that is an extremely rare case.

You are under-thinking this issue a great deal.

There are no less than three variables in play:
1. Genetic Makeup
2. Physical Development
3. Psychological Makeup

For example, it is entirely possible for a genetic male to develop  
labia and a vagina in the womb, and thus be born, and raised as, and  
identify as, a female, and not learn until much later in their life  
that they are genetically classified as a "male". The converse is  
also true.

With *only* 3 states for each variable (male/female/other or not  
determined), the result set is 27 different variants, with the  
"other" set having a wide breadth of variance.

>  Even so, when a person is truly
> trans gender in their body they are most likely sterile as the
> sexual organs of men and women are not designed to exist together
> in the same body.

That statement doesn't even make scientific, let alone logical, sense.

The sex organs of *both* sexes are formed from the same basic  
structures, and the development is informed (but not always  
determined) by genetic cues. Thus, it's fairly *likely* that many  
males will have a penis and testicles, and females will have labia, a  
clitoris and a uterus. However, because they are all formed from  
similar base structures, it's completely possible (and happens with  
great frequency) that the sex organs are not clearly one thing, or  
another, but a mixture.

>   For trans gender people, there is probably a
> dominant gender.

It's not my, or your, right to determine if somebody *else* thinks  
that they are  "male", "black", "christian", or any number of  
"dominant" things.

> If you cannot sexually identify with the physical body you have,
> marriage will only add to your problems.

Some people have to sexually identify with a much wider range of  
issues than simply "the body they have".

>  Why marry if you are an
> effeminate man who cannot provide a good male role model to a child?

Wow, that's offensive.

I suppose that was your point. *shrug*

There's this guy who spent a bunch of time meekly backing down,  
turning the other cheek, caring for others, and placing the needs of  
the weak and the innocent above his own interests. He wore a dress a  
lot.

You might have heard of him, I hear he's a popular role model. You  
might know of him as "Jesus", or in some faiths, "God".

> What kind of woman wants to marry a man who is so effeminate that he
> twists the arm of government till it calls him a woman?

Maybe she's a person who loves another *person*, not a person who  
puts loving a specific gender *stereotype* above loving other people?

> What is the source of this man's feeling that he is a woman?

The same source as a person feeling that he is "black", "male", or  
"christian", or whatever.

> The better choice he could have made instead of marrying a
> woman as a "legal woman" is to enlist the help of a
> psychiatrist to help him accept his true male gender.
> The success rate of the latter is quite high.

Only in the the sales brochures. I hear there are lots of "diets"  
with similar claims. Want to buy the Brooklyn Bridge? I know a guy  
who has a great deal running...

>  A man who
> thinks he is a woman is sick.  Same for a woman who thinks
> she's a man.

Again, you're under-thinking. "Man" and "Woman" aren't universal,  
easily defined, categories.

>  The human body is not meant to be trans gender.

Uhm, according to...what, exactly?

The human body, like all other vertebrates, has a variety of sexual,  
social, and gender variations.

> I will point out that the numbers are small for people in the
> population who are actually gay or trans gender.

They're (the numbers) also small for Jews and African-Americans and  
Catholics (and... and... and...)

What's your point?

> However,
> Portland and San Francisco seem to have unusually high
> concentrations of homosexuals or at least a high concentration
> of GLBT activists.  Maybe there aren't a lot of gay people,
> maybe a few are really loud and very politically active because
> they have no children to care for and tons of money that the
> average man on the street does not have.

Maybe. Or maybe the two cities have a higher concentration of  
educated people, who can grasp complex concepts.

> The marriage is wrong because the man does not accept his masculinity

How do you know this? Nothing was said about it, IIRC.

The man could accept both his masculinity and his femininity,

> ...and the woman may have gender identity problems as well.

The woman could accept both her masculinity and her femininity.

> A woman
> marrying a man who thinks he is a woman, she is running the risk that
> he'll be attracted to other men and even cheat on her with them.

That doesn't even make sense.

That's like saying:
"A woman marrying a man who thinks he is a man, she is running the  
risk that he'll be attracted to other women and even cheat on her  
with them."

>  I
> understand that homosexual sex drive is on average stronger than
> heterosexual sex drive.

You are completely, and totally, wrong on both the substance, and  
merits, of your understanding.

What I'm *guessing* you're getting at, is that sexual drive is higher  
based on testosterone, a chemical men and women share. So, two  
homosexual women with high testosterone have a higher drive than two  
homosexual men, or straight man and a woman, with low testosterone.

>  The gender identity problems may not be a
> problem for this couple amongst each other, they may not cheat on
> each other.  However, it will likely be a problem for their children
> trying to form their own sexual identity.

Only if the children are raised with shallow, ill-educated, ideas  
about human sexuality.

> ...If you are a man, identify as a man.  If you are a woman,  
> identify as
> a woman.  If you can't, get help from a licensed psychiatrist.

Hey, did you know that part of routine sex-change surgeries involves  
psychiatrists?

I'm guessing you didn't.

> That all said and done, before anyone calls me a bigot, consider the
> following.  Is disagreeing with someone on something or some  
> phenomenon
> discrimination?

Disagreement with an idea, no.

Trying to extend your idea, be it that "blacks are bad" or "Jews are  
bad" or "gays are bad", into the public sphere, into public life and  
social laws and customs, is where many folks draw the line.

>  If I strongly believe that noone should engage in gay
> sex, is it discriminatory for me to say so?

It's fine for you to *think* that "Jews shouldn't have sex", or  
"blacks shouldn't have sex" or "gays shouldn't have sex", and decide  
what you are going to do with your own body (assuming you were any of  
the above groups).

What's discriminatory is to declare what *others* should do, or not  
do, with their bodies and lives, because of your personal beliefs.

> Perhaps I should call the
> person who says that gay sex is normal a bigot.

Well, since you don't seem to understand the words "sex", or  
"gender", I'm not surprised that you don't understand the word "bigot".

>  Was
> Obama a racist when he said, "some people hang on tightly to their
> religion and guns."

Okay, you apparently don't understand the word "racist", either.

-Bop