I’m usually quiet on matters of transgender people, even though I am one. I like to work one-on-one, by being a decent human being and caring person. I also want to be seen as a multi-dimensional person.
But I cannot stay silent on President Trump’s latest declaration that transgender people are unfit to serve. This from a draft dodger who took five deferments to avoid Vietnam. His final draft status: 4-F (Unfit to Serve). My final draft status for Vietnam: 1-A (Active / Fit to Serve). The irony is delicious.
- Donald Trump is wrong about transgender in the military. Just like in the 40’s when arguments against blacks being integrated hurt unit cohesion. Just like in the 80’s and 90’s when arguments about women in combat zones would hurt unit cohesion. Just like in the 90’s and 00’s when arguments against gays would hurt unit cohesion. These are the arguments of fear mongers, racists, misogynists, homophobes, and idiots. There is no data to support their claims. It is old identity politics. It’s stupid, asinine, and fear based on ignorance. America should be better than this.Gays, women, people of color, transgender folk have always served in the US military. They just couldn’t be open about it. But they’ve always been there, for as long as there has been a United States of America.
2. Medical costs on transgender are not “tremendous”, despite Donald Trump’s claims. Medical treatment for trans folk is not cheap, but, it is, in fact, cheaper than going to the ER for multiple complex fractures and injuries from a car accident; far cheaper than treating cancer; and slightly more expensive than gallbladder removal or a hysterectomy. The one-time costs on surgery range anywhere from $17,000 to $85,000 depending on the surgeon and the location. Hormones are relatively inexpensive, depending upon the method: pill, patch, or injection. Electrolysis / laser hair removal is $100-$200 per hour and usually comes out of trans person’s own pocket.
Other surgeries, such as plastic surgery, are also deemed by insurance companies as optional, so that comes out of our own pockets as well. Ongoing medical costs are typical, as you would normally expect, for any average American woman or man in the long term.
3. As Barry Goldwater once said, “”you don’t need to be ‘straight’ to fight and die for your country. You just need to shoot straight.
4. If anyone is unfit to serve, it is you, Donald Trump. And you prove it every time you open your mouth.
5. You attacked me, my patriotism, my loyalty, and my humanity. Surely you don’t expect me to roll over and play dead now?
6. I’m now in the “great game”. You’ve pissed me off. And millions of decent Americans are not going to put up with this chit.
I will fight because I’ve had to for the past 20 years to exist. I don’t want to fight. But I will. I, and people like me, have a right to live in peace and not be harassed by ignorant phucks like you, Donald Trump.
Go to hell.
This is so very sad. A report by the World Wildlife Fund notes that we’ve lost 52% of the population from all species since 1970. I feel like my children and their children will not know the kind of diversity of species that I had the privilege of encountering in nature as a child. And the shows which brought us the wonderful expanse of nature, will have so much less to document and record. It seems to me, as nature goes, so do we humans. And right now that direction is not looking good. Let’s change it.
From the report:
The conservation group’s Living Planet Report, published every two years, said humankind’s demands were now 50 percent more than nature can bear, with trees being felled, groundwater pumped and carbon dioxide emitted faster than Earth can recover.
“This damage is not inevitable but a consequence of the way we choose to live,” Ken Norris, Director of Science at the Zoological Society of London, said in a statement.
For more about the report, go to this link:
by Alice Robb / newrepublic.com
One day in 1779, a London couple, seeking treatment for their seven-year-old daughter, showed up at the Soho Square Dispensary for the Relief of the Infant Poor. The first doctor thought she might have a hernia. The second had a different idea.
“I shall not trouble the reader with the surprise into which the parents were thrown when I first told them their child was not a girl, as they had supposed, but a boy,” wrote the second doctor. The case was recently discovered in the archives of the University of Kansas and written up in the latest issue of the journal Sexualities.
In the early 2000s, Carol Warren—then a professor of sociology at the University of Kansas—was researching the history of electricity in the college’s rare books library when she noticed an old pamphlet with an eye-catching title: “The case of a boy who had been mistaken for a girl; with three anatomical views of the parts, before and after the operation and cure,” by a surgeon called Thomas Brand. “I was looking through a bunch of materials that had been shoved together, and this one appeared,” recalls Warren.
According to Brand’s report, published in 1787, he noticed an “irregularity” in the patient’s “external parts.” After further examination, he concluded that the child’s “part, which had the appearance of the labia pudenda, was in fact the scrotum,” and suggested an “operation to free the penis from its confinement.” He went ahead and made some alterations, enabling the child—whose name is unknown—“to urinate standing up, wear trousers, and enjoy the privileges of being a male.” Brand, who practiced at the Royal Hospital at Greenwich, was “not a quack,” according to Mary Fissell, a professor of the History of Medicine at Johns Hopkins who I spoke to on the phone.
Brand saw the operation not as sex change, but as a means of returning the child to his “proper” gender; Brand seemed to believe that only two distinct sexes were possible. He denied the existence of hermaphrodites, although he was familiar with the concept: “The term ‘hermaphrodite’ is properly understood as an animal that has both the male and female organs equally and perfectly formed,” he wrote. “But,” he goes on, “There is no reason to believe that such a case ever had existence in the human subject.”
Brand’s attitude toward sex and gender was consistent with the predominant view of his time; according to eighteenth-century norms, sex was a medical fact that had nothing to do with choice or personal expression. In fact, neither the patient nor his parents seem to have even been consulted. “Gender wasn’t conceived of as a form of identity,” says Warren. “It was conceived of as a form of body.” The idea of a person being “transgender,” of course, is not something that would enter common conception until about two centuries later.
Click on the link continue reading the article…
Amazing animated chart of North American Butterflies by Eleanor Lutz!
As an aside, you can support Lutz by purchasing some of her amazing work here at: http://www.artsider.com/people/hellofromthemoon
by Esther Inglis-Arkell / io9.com
There are plenty of tests that study conformity, but measuring anti-conformity is a tougher proposition. How do you measure something that is only evident after you make your influence felt? Researching this led to some interesting experiments, and the best line ever delivered by Sigmund Freud.
Conformity experiments have revealed some horrible truths about human nature. Anti-conformity experiments have just revealed, for the most part, only the annoying truths. Then again, anti-conformity is tough to measure. Not only has a person got to go against the grain of the group, it has to be shown that their only reason for doing so is to keep themselves from fitting in. How do you set up an experiment to prove that?
Michael Argyle, a psychologist, attempted the first experiment meant to measure anti-conformity in 1957. He had volunteers come in, and pair up, in order to engage in a little art critique. Unbeknownst to one half of each pair, their partner was actually Argyle’s assistant. The assistant was there to reject the participant’s view of the painting they were evaluating – which, by the way, was The Poet Reclining, by Marc Chagall. (If anyone is wondering about my opinion, I am not a fan, although I like the colors in the sky, and the piggy. Have at me, anti-conformists!)
Whatever view the participant expressed of the painting, Argyle’s stooge rejected it. The participant was then given another chance to evaluate the painting. Fifty-eight percent of the participants didn’t change their ideas. Around thirty-five percent adjusted their opinions towards those of their partners. Eight percent went the other way. They exaggerated the differences between their opinions and the opinions of their supposed partner. Argyle dubbed these people anti-conformists.
Click here to continue reading the article: http://io9.com/anti-conformity-research-led-to-freuds-best-sarcastic-o-1589769720
Then took the other, as just as fair,
And having perhaps the better claim
Because it was grassy and wanted wear,
Though as for that the passing there
Had worn them really about the same,
And both that morning equally lay
In leaves no step had trodden black.
Oh, I kept the first for another day!
Yet knowing how way leads on to way
I doubted if I should ever come back.
I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I,
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.
~ Robert Frost