I don't accept it as being normal, but I don't feel the need to insist that everyone else accept it as abnormal. As long as it doesn't affect me in a negative way, I can be tolerant. Before they changed it to mean welcoming with open arms, tolerance simply meant that you would let them live. Acceptance is much the same, I think. We can accept that something is true even if we don't like it or think that it's a good or a sensible idea. I have worked with, and employed, people who were gay. But there was one guy who would leer at twelve year-old boys in a way that made me feel uncomfortable, and when I found him outside the ambulance station talking to a couple of young boys, my level of tolerance was exceeded. I wasn't going to wait for something worse to occur because once it happened, the harm would have already been done - to the boy and to the ambulance company that employed him. Otherwise, the gay people who I have worked with didn't bring it work with them. Although I will acknowledge that there may be some guys who think otherwise, I am not comfortable with people discussing their sex lives at work, whatever the arrangement might be. I don't even care if they're married; I don't need to hear about it. Such things should remain private. However, if you think about it, heterosexual people routinely make non-sexual references to their wife, their husband, their boyfriend or to their girlfriend, and I can accept that those who are gay shouldn't have to pretend that they are something else. Does it make me feel a little uncomfortable? Yes, I suppose it does, but my level of discomfort in this would be less than the level of discomfort experienced by someone who has to pretend to be someone other than who s/he is. I've been asked whether I would have hired someone knowing that they were gay (transexual might work here as well), and my answer is that I probably wouldn't - not because they were gay or transexual, but because that's not a topic that I would ask in an employment interview so if it came up, it would be inappropriate. I did have a few employees who would refuse to work with someone because he was gay, and our ambulance stations were in apartments or other rented facilities where two medics would work twenty-four hour shifts, but then I had employees who didn't want to work with other people, for various reasons; even some who didn't want to be paired with a female medic because they thought they'd be stuck with an unfair share of the heavy lifting. We made allowances where it was easy to do so, but generally people worked with whoever they were assigned to work with, and there were no actual problems. In a free society, people aren't forced to accept that which they find unacceptable. In a free society, people have a right even to be racist, sexist, or to hate people with red hair, if that bothers them. There may be social consequences, however. I have every right to fly a Nazi flag from my rooftop if I want to, but I might have trouble making friends or getting service people to return my calls.
I will find it at a later time but Paul did preach to the Corinthians about their sexual practices. Chapter 7 I believe. Somewhere along the line he made it a precedent for sex and the discussion of sex to be kept in private. Of course, he did say only between husband and wife but nowadays who knows which one is which in some cases.
A story...and then I am done posting to this thread,only because I think I have said enough. About 1985 in the height of the AIDS epidemic (close enough) there was a young man who came to work in our very small and crowded office space. Four women including me ,of various ages and back grounds. Can not remember his name, but will never forget him or his face. He was maybe 20ish. He was alone in the world, as his parents had disowned him, and most of his relatives. He had a room mate, also male. At some point we all realized he was gay. We all talked and joked and he taught us a bit of sign language. He was fun, personable and liked. One day he brought donuts. A young woman I called her Spammy (devout Baptist, bible toting gal)but not pretentious acting in her faith. Spammy and I were the only ones in the office at the time. She picks up a donut, looks over at me with a question on her face. But then she dropped it in the trash. Unfortunately I did also. Forget the fact, that AIDS was not truly understood and there was much stigma regarding this disease,our fear kept us from enjoying more of his kindness, because he was gay, and might have AIDS . A few days later we saw the young man in the big boss office. That was the last time we ever saw him. Turns out his room mate had AIDS and was dying.The young man we knew, told the boss about this all, and though he had grown to love us all, and hated to quit... he did not want to risk giving us AIDS. I can tell you this Spammy and I both cried. We were ashamed to the core for our behavior. I still get misty eyes thinking of that day,and the person who loved us more, than we cared about him.
Fear of a disease for which not much was known at the time is nothing to be ashamed of, but I can surely appreciate the sentiment. However, we should only hold ourselves responsible for what we know at the time, I think.
I got along great with the two Lesbians I worked for......as long as I didn't think about their bedroom thing.
@ Cody Fousnaugh Ok , let's just clarify something here. I don't like it when people misinterpret my words, deliberately or otherwise. First I did not attempt to defend the Transgender Sex because there is no Transgender sex. i stated - I believe quite clearly - that Sex and Gender are different things- sex is biology - Gender is not, The interchangeability of both terms by people who relate every little thing to sex is a corruption of both logic and meaning.The association of Transgender with Sex has been a result of linguistic appropriation by socio-political activists who claim a knowledge they do not possess. I have no need to defend or be defensive for I have done nothing wrong and have not defended anyone who has, so where exactly is that coming from? There appears to be little point in my continuing to post on this thread if my words are going to be misinterpreted. I am not going to argue with people just for the sake of it.
Sorry. But, you should criticize the others on here who talk and joke around about Transgenders also. I still think you shouldn't have revealed this and I'm not the only person on this Thread that thinks this. Billie, some things are just better not saying on a Thread. Again, sorry.
@Billie Lane, a big part of the problem, I think, is one of not knowing which words are supposed to be used. It doesn't happen so often anymore, but I'm sure that I am not the only one here who has known someone who didn't hate black people at all, but who used words that would be offensive to them, not to denigrate them, but because those were the only words they knew. I told the story in this forum before of when I registered for my first semester of college, and was asked whether I would mind having a black roommate. I didn't mind at all. Although the totality of my experience with black people was restricted to seeing a black person drive by on the highway once every couple of years, I didn't see any reason to object to having a black roommate. Well, I did have a black roommate, which is why they asked me that question, apparently. We got along just fine. One day, he had a bag of Brazil nuts, but I never remember having heard them described by that name. At that time, we only had Brazil nuts around Christmas time, and mixed in a bag of several types of nuts. The conversation went something like this. Me: "I've got to ask. What do you call those?" Him: "I call them nigger toes, but you can call them Brazil nuts if that makes you feel more comfortable." That was the extent of the conversation, other than some laughter. We grew up with a lot of words and phrases that we used only because they were part of our vocabulary, not because we had any interest in denigrating anyone. No doubt, whoever first decided to call them that probably had other motivations, but that was a time of "Pollack" jokes, dumb blonde jokes (which were often the same jokes), and phrases that included being "gyped," or "jewed," which meant pretty much the same thing. As a kid, I never knew where the word "gyp" came from and, since that was part of my vocabulary, I didn't think about it long enough to figure it out. Of course, we had no Gypsies or Jewish people living around us, so no one was offended. I have since learned that "Pollack" jokes originated with Nazi propaganda, and that the Nazis also widely distributed the idea that Gypsies and Jewish people would cheat you, although these preceded the Third Reich. Yes, we do well to eliminate these words and phrases from our vocabulary because they do hurt, but not everyone who used these words, or who told these jokes, had bad intentions against the targets. Sometimes we just don't know what the right words are, and I don't suppose it's unreasonable to suggest that not everyone wants to learn new words.
ALL: I have read through the entire thread and come up with a question not addressed: What do you have to say about someone who believes in nothing: Not the Bible, not acceptance or denial of sexual preference, not the use of drugs, not advocating one stance or the other regarding Contemporary Moral Issues? For, they are ALL contemporary moral issues, are they not? Frank
Ah but the "preacher" said when he wrote Ecclesiastes that there is NOTHING new. Strange as it may seem, historically, there is indeed nothing new whether it be drugs, sex, gender issues, booze, belief systems....nothing. My goodness, New Testament Corinth was so bad that even the Romans hated the place. Imagine, the Romans who practiced all sorts of debauchery, renaming a country they defeated. They renamed it Corinth, which means.......Corrupt.
Things have gone from one end to the other on this thread when I do believe it was actually about the fluidity by which some people live their life in relation to their gender. I am sure you can feel good with your attempt to educate the masses here @Billie Lane, but like it or not it was bound to be expanded upon with no ill will intended towards you. I think (which is sometimes dangerous all by itself) what brings about a lot of negative thinking dealing with anything other than heterosexuality is this: The gay community (no matter how many specifications there are) has indeed gone militant. From suing people of a different faith for a non-participation stance to physical activism at political rally's. We are being forced to not only acknowledge a person for their gender preference but know everything about them as if they are some other species. Some, who wish to change their physical sex designation are making a choice to join the military to get a tax payer funded operation. School locker rooms and showers are open to "whatever you feel like today" types of students who have never before exhibited anything other than their birth designation. Department stores and restaurants have to build new restrooms to accommodate those with gender issues or allow men, the predominate group, into the women's area. The list goes on and on at an alarming rate which could account for a bit of animosity in the heterosexual community. The bottom line here is that no matter the gender designation whether solid or fluid, a person cannot simply grab someone by the shirt collar and shout "like me or else"! I for one, will not take that from anyone no matter what or who they feel like on any given moment. It's just........human nature......
@Cody FosNaugh, So , I have no right to Freedom of Speech according to yourself and my other silent critics ? You claim the right to comment on a post involving Transgenderism, but i who am Transgender am effectively being told I should shut up and mind my own business? You talk about me but don't want to talk to me? I have no right to declare myself Transgender on a thread that references Transgenderism? What a fine example of Democracy that is. Incidentally, I have criticised no-one up untill this point, I have taken issue with an uninformed argument. You have chosen to contradict both myself and yourself on this thread, for someone who doesn't like the subject you certainly have a lot to say. Ok, fine - bring it on ,but don't expect an easy ride and don't tell me to get back in the closet. I have as much right to be heard as you do and if you don't like my open declaration then you and your friends should not have initiated this thread. If you can't stand the heat, etc... @Ken Anderson, We are clearly not reading from the same page here. I have not taken offence at Transgender jokes - if there were any, they obviously were not very good , because I didn't even notice.On that point Cody has assumed wrong, or perhaps it is an evasive maneavour by someone who is trying to evade the issue that he himself has chosen to make an issue. I didn't seek to provoke an argument but only to provide information. What I have taken issue with is 1/ people putting every Transgender individual in the same basket . I have not attempted to justify the few Trans individuals who flaunt themselves or attempt to manipulate the system yet apparently because I state I am Transgender I am being provocative and insensible to other people's sensitivities? 2/ the inability of people to seperate sex from gender or Transgender 3/ attempts to silence a voice that has more genuine knowledge of the subject in question 4/ imagining I have been " hurt " by certain words, - that is another assumption -a nd a false one. If peoples words had hurt me I can assure i would let fly with a few carefully chosen words of my own pertaing to their lack of character and more besides. So rest assured I am neither morally nor emotionally insecure. 5/ the belief - without foundation - that religious books are written by God ( how else could they be seen as God's words ) and not the hand and mind of men with vested interests in promoting a particular view 6/ the claim by those who take the Bible and other sacred texts literally that this in itself is divine confirmation that they have both the right of judgement and a superior knowledge of religion. The only definitive truth in the westernised christian Bible are the teachings of Christ, not the Roman's censored Gospels . It is Christ who says not to Judge and if the Christians on this forum don't understand that then they are not Christians. P.S. I was intending to leave this thread alone but if people are going to use it as a personal political platform, I will respond in kind.