Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
As you may know by now, President Obama has made the first executive appointment of a transgendered person, naming Amanda Simpson as a senior adviser to the Commerce Department, where she will work on military technology. As a former test pilot who spent 30 years working for defense contractors in advanced technology development -- and, quite literally, a rocket scientist -- she certainly seems qualified for the job.
Naturally, this has the wingnuts all verklempt. They seem to be concerned about anything other than whether this person is qualified. The Worldnutdaily's top of the page "exclusive" article Wednesday morning screamed "breaking news" and included the headline:
Yeah, because that's really relevant and newsworthy. They could be writing about Simpson's experience in the area, her academic achievements, the work she's done on missile technology for the last few decades, even her military history. None of that matters to them, of course, because all they can think about is "EWWWWWWWWW!"
They do quote Simpson saying that she knows that she'll be viewed as a token and therefore that she'll have to do her job far better than others would have to do it. But that's something she's had to deal with throughout her career. And they still insist on using male pronouns, which is quite rude and presumptuous (if not contemptuous).
Peter LaBarbera, president of Americans for Truth, a "national organization devoted exclusively to exposing and countering the homosexual activist agenda," jokingly asked if there is some sort of "transgender quota" in the Obama administration."How far does this politics of gay and transgender activism go?" he said. "Clearly this is an administration that is pandering to the gay lobby."
Right. Because no gay or transgendered person could ever actually be qualified for a job. And then they go on to quote a bunch of idiots leaving comments on blogs - because it's not news, it's the Worldnutdaily.
Politics
Comments
Nice looking woman.
Posted by: Owen | January 7, 2010 9:27 AM
Yes, Owen, because her looks are what's important about her.
Posted by: MadGastronomer | January 7, 2010 9:33 AM
Slightly on a tangent... Dingo
Posted by: DingoJack | January 7, 2010 9:41 AM
MadGastronomer, apparently you missed the point. Think about it.
Posted by: Owen | January 7, 2010 9:42 AM
When I was about 12 (early 1970s) I read a weekly newsmagazine article about a transgendered person which included how they were treated by others. I learned in that article that while this person biologically looked like a male or female (I forget which now), they identified as the opposite.
My consideration of this person's story was one of the first events that caused me to become reasonably convinced that the Christian religion was a fraud; both the premises of its beliefs (dogma) coupled to how Christians reacted to this person in a way I found perfectly contra to the Beatitudes and some other 'love thy' admonitions attributed to Jesus.
(I started doubting around the time I was 8 or 9 when I began to personally discover contradictions within the Bible and also started to notice that our 'wise elders' were ignorant to their dogma, advocated solely on redundant reaffirmation of faith through talking points, and advocated being free by being a submissive sheep who comes to faith as a child. I had bought too hard into the American story of individual liberty to see being a childish sheep as a good thing.)
Posted by: Michael Heath | January 7, 2010 9:45 AM
In fairness the bottom two quotes are to the effect that she is qualified for the job and there are more important things to worry about. Perhaps they couldn't find enough stupid people, maybe some kind of quota system is needed.
Posted by: Matty | January 7, 2010 9:51 AM
I wonder if they'll swear off using electronics designed with Mead-Conway methods.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | January 7, 2010 9:58 AM
Owen,
Well, I've thought about it, and I still don't see any point to your making a judgemental remark about this woman's appearance, especially when the point here is that her resume is what should be the focus of attention in this situation. Would you explain?
Posted by: JuliaL | January 7, 2010 10:12 AM
In fairness to Owen, I don't think there's necessarily anything wrong with commenting on this woman's appearance if he were to have acknowledged her other, more pertinent-to-discussion traits. He didn't do that here, of course, and I'm not sure what his point was, either.
Given the right's propensity for scare quotes, I can't say I'm surprised to see them here. I would have, however, expected them to qualify "transgender" (they clearly don't believe that it's a legitimate phenomenon, given their outright contempt and hatred for Simpson displayed in the article). Why has "pick" been given the scare-quote treatment?
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | January 7, 2010 10:49 AM
I assume because they don't believe the choice was legitimate-- that Obama only chose her so that he could have a transgendered appointee.
Yeah, I know...it's WND; they rarely make sense.
Posted by: Gretchen | January 7, 2010 10:54 AM
The wing nuts want a quota system for trans peoples in federal employment. 0% need apply.
Posted by: Kathy | January 7, 2010 10:56 AM
JuliaL,
I found Owen's comment funny. I thought he was rebuking WND's lack of integrity by referring to Ms. Sampson as a man by noting her attractiveness as a woman. (never as funny when you have to spell it out).
In fact WND even puts scare quotes around her new first name which is Amanda; a given name I find amusingly ironic as well given the situation.
Posted by: Michael Heath | January 7, 2010 10:59 AM
Michael Heath:
In my opinion,(and I emphasize "my opinion"),Christianity as we know it today is embarrassingly fraudulent. Moreover, when measured against the teachings of Jesus, Christianity is ethically bankrupt. I have not arrived at this position lightly. I have given 40 years of my life to service as a Christian minister and Navy Chaplain. As a Navy Chaplain in a pluralistic, institutional environment I was able to function within a model of ministry that was far more "universal and equitable" than would have been possible within the narrow-minded confines of a denominational setting. Looking back, I now realize that had I remained within the narrow strictures of dogmatic denominationalism that I would have opted out long before reaching the 40 year mark.
I still consider myself to be a Christian; however, I choose to define myself as a "Christian Humanist." I have 2 scriptural reference points that serve as the "true north" of my religious compass. They are: 1) Micah 6:6-8; and 2) Jesus' Sermon on the Mount.
For my own purposes and to my own satisfaction, I have been able to intellectually and philosophically abandon the layers of religious bullshit that have accrued at the hands of men over the years. Nevertheless, I cannot "bail out" completely. I remain attached by virtue of one "Wholly Other" event that impacted upon my life. It was a singular, brief event but it was dramatic. For many years I accepted it without questioning its reality. Later, I examined it under the microscope of the psychology of human behavior. I considered that I might have been hallucinating at the time. After attaining some modest degree of academic and intellectual sophistication, I was privately and personally embarrassed that I could not dispose of this event as pure fantasy. After many years of severe self-examination I still hold to this event as a genuine encounter with a force that I identify as "Wholly (Holy?) Other."
So, with this experience and with the two reference points cited above, I continue to be a "believer." But then again, maybe I am just trying to salvage something of the commitment of 40 years work so that I will not come to the conclusion that my entire labors have been for nothing.
Life can be so very complex and contradictory in many ways. It's sort of like getting your short game really straightened out only to find that you can no longer keep your driver in the fairway!
Posted by: CAPT Norm Holcomb, CHC, USN (Ret) | January 7, 2010 11:06 AM
When I blogged about this story, I pointed out that the right is essentially arguing for affirmative action. They want demographic information to trump her actual qualifications. The hypocrisy and opportunism are particularly revolting, as one person's life and livelihood are the only issue.
Here's my post: http://isitluck.wordpress.com/2010/01/06/the-religious-right-supports-affirmative-action/
Posted by: barry | January 7, 2010 11:22 AM
I think you guys are attributing malice or sexism to a comment the comment by Owen when clearly none was intended. It's not like he said, "Nice looking woman... that needs to get back in the kitchen and make me a sandwich."
Posted by: David | January 7, 2010 11:22 AM
JuliaL & Sadie,
Michael Heath's take on my comment is how it was meant.
Posted by: Owen | January 7, 2010 11:26 AM
David, are you the same David that thinks there's some truth in "The Pink Swastika?"
Posted by: Owen | January 7, 2010 11:28 AM
I found Owen's comment funny. I thought he was rebuking WND's lack of integrity by referring to Ms. Sampson as a man by noting her attractiveness as a woman. (never as funny when you have to spell it out).
I got that. I just thought it was unfunny and playing into sexism.
I think you guys are attributing malice or sexism to a comment the comment by Owen when clearly none was intended. It's not like he said, "Nice looking woman... that needs to get back in the kitchen and make me a sandwich."
I think you have a very shallow understanding of sexism. Regardless of his intent, the only comment he actually made was on her appearance, which is beside the point. Whether or not he intends it to, that sort of comment plays along with, and therefor reinforces, the idea that a woman's looks are her most noteworthy qualities. I get that he intended to specifically acknowledge Ms. Simpson as a woman, and probably to make some sort of comment about how "successful" her transition was, but the way he did so was effectively sexist.
Posted by: MadGastronomer | January 7, 2010 11:30 AM
Capt. Holcomb,
As I've conveyed before, I have an enormous amount of respect for you and your service to those in the Armed Services. I'm usually more precise in distinguishing between those communities within which I was raised (evangelical/fundie) and liberal Christianity. Perhaps I should have done so here as well though the point was that I no longer self-identify as Christian.
Given I did take the claims seriously as a kid rather than unthinkingly submitting, I've never discarded what I thought were valuable lessons that if followed, would lead to a better society. Particularly the difficult to live up to idea that grace is superior to justice, our obligations on how to treat those who are not as fortunate, the importance of forgiveness, and prudent application (not universal) of the admonition we forgive our enemies 70 times 7 (IIRC).
One dogmatic prescription I also follow is honesty though I claim that not only was I not taught that principle, I know of no non-felonious group more dishonest in the modern-day than socially conservative Christians (I'd have to go back to communist USSR and Mao's China to find worse examples of dishonesty).
The 70 times 7 lesson is currently a struggle for me given a relative close to me continues to belong to a group of people who disingenuously and passively* advocate for the assassination of the President because they're convinced he's a Muslim in league with al Qaeda. This current position merely being the latest given their commitment to social conservatives and people like Pat Robertson and Sarah Palin; the latter I find ironic given their churches don't allow women to teach men or be leaders over men.
*They use terms like, "I can't believe he's still President!" or "Why hasn't someone taken care of him yet, we're losing our country!".
Posted by: Michael Heath | January 7, 2010 11:34 AM
I'm sorry David, I looked back and that was a Dave.
Posted by: Owen | January 7, 2010 11:34 AM
This leaves me wondering what species, besides heterosexual human beings, are capable of such vile, abusive treatment of their very own offspring.
But the only one I can come up with is the heterosexual human being.
You know, the ones always running around screaming their heads off about morality while treating their very own LGTB creations in the abusive, vile manner that they do.
Those ones.
Morality indeed, heterosexuals.
Morality. Indeed.
Posted by: Bill | January 7, 2010 11:48 AM
Michael Heath,
So it's OK for him to connect the question of whether a person is truly a woman or not is to the degree to which that person meets modern European/American standards of beauty?
I normally agree with almost everything you say, Michael, and I appreciate your logic and your accurate information. But if someone questioned whether you are male or female, I wouldn't say you're obviously male because you're so logical. Even illogical people may be male.
Many years of struggling against sexist limitations in my career has made me very sensitive to any assumption or implication that a person's femaleness has anything at all to do with whether or not she has regular features, a bright smile, and long, wavy blonde hair. And any comment, even a joke, along those lines invites WND to reply that she can't really be a woman because she has large hands or is very tall or some other purely physical characteristic not part of the conventional beauty standard for women.
David, I'm not attributing malice to Owen. But his comment is certainly based on sexist assumptions.
Posted by: JuliaL | January 7, 2010 11:48 AM
MadGastronomer -
I don't beleive that a random quote on some random blog made by some random guy like me has any influence on anything.
Posted by: Owen | January 7, 2010 11:49 AM
I think there are many Christians in the same position as you. My own parents have been active members of the Methodist Church in the UK all of their lives, but have had increasing doubts about the veracity of the Bible and of the supernatural events that supposedly surrounded Jesus' life. It was all brought to a head a few years ago (when they were both well into their 70s) when the minister's wife led them through a study of the Old Testament.
My dad now openly admits that if they was younger, they probably would have left the church altogether, but they have so much of their lives invested in their church life -- probably at least 80% -- that it would be a nonsense to give all that up on principle. It helps that it is a liberal denomination, but mostly it gives structure to their lives -- pastoral visiting (an endless task in an aging congregation), green activism, befriending and mentoring local Chinese students, not to mention all the personal friendships and relationships they have had over the years.
So what if they don't believe Jesus was born of a virgin and more? (Except when they get into arguments with a "born-again" Baptist friend of theirs who can't hold a candle to either of them morally.) The social community they have built over the years is far too important in their lives to just toss out at this stage.
Posted by: tacitus | January 7, 2010 11:53 AM
I don't beleive that a random quote on some random blog made by some random guy like me has any influence on anything.
Your belief is mistaken.
Posted by: MadGastronomer | January 7, 2010 11:54 AM
Michael Heath:
I was not disagreeing with you on anything that you said. Your reference to seeing the Christian religion as a fraud resonated with my own convictions at this time. I don't think that you and I would find ourselves in disagreement on our views of religion. I merely pointed out that I have very few personal attachments to Christianity but I hold them as personal and private and do not browbeat others regarding those personal beliefs/attachments.
I believe that the conservative viewpoints are largely driven by fear, ignorance and an inferiority complex / personal insecurity syndrome that cannot be kept intact if contradictions or different viewpoints are allowed.
Posted by: CAPT Norm Holcomb, CHC, USN (Ret) | January 7, 2010 11:56 AM
In regards to Owen & MadGastronomer.
I thought the comment was a pleasant compliment. I'm sure if she was to read it, she would be happy that it was stated, and not offended in the least.
Question MadGastronomer- if rather than Owen stating it (whom I assume is male), it was another female, would it still be sexist? If someone said they liked her uniform, or her necklace, or something else that was appearance based, why does it have to be negative (sexism), rather than a compliment?
Posted by: Jordan G | January 7, 2010 12:03 PM
Owen,
Well, you certainly changed my day.
You may be enough younger than me that you have little experience with very open sexism, but you brought rushing back a lot of ugly memories of being told by some men that I was very unfeminine because my mind was so logical, and being told by other men that I couldn't really be logical because I was too pretty.
I studied and worked for years in environments that were predominately male, and I had more than my fill of assumptions that whether a person is really, truly male or female is connected to appearance. At one point I saw another woman's idea being accepted while mine was ignored because, as I was told, "She's so ugly she might as well be a man, but you're too pretty for all that intellectual stuff."
Posted by: JuliaL | January 7, 2010 12:04 PM
Tacitus:
Thank you for your comments. I think that your assesment / analysis is on target. I continue to visit nursing homes, visit friends and acquaintances in the hospital, do volunteer work for local organizations, etc. However, I no longer "have the stomach for" nor do I find it ethically honest to browbeat people about praying and reading the Bible as solutions to their problems and healing for their infirmities.
Posted by: CAPT Norm Holcomb, CHC, USN (Ret) | January 7, 2010 12:04 PM
Question MadGastronomer- if rather than Owen stating it (whom I assume is male), it was another female, would it still be sexist? If someone said they liked her uniform, or her necklace, or something else that was appearance based, why does it have to be negative (sexism), rather than a compliment?
Yes, it would still be sexist if a woman said it. Because no matter who says it, the statement implies that, because she is a woman, the most important thing about Ms. Simpson is her looks, and that is an inherently sexist idea. I don't know how often I have to say this. When the discussion is about a woman in a professional context, to comment exclusively on her appearance is sexist. Agree, don't agree, man says it, woman says it, still sexist.
Posted by: MadGastronomer | January 7, 2010 12:09 PM
JuliaL,
I could say I have gone through many years of struggle against sexist limitations on my career also, being an effeminate gay man has been no picnic. So I understand the sensitivity. (See my comment to David which I made in haste.)
Yes, my comment was based on sexist assumptions. It's not unheard of to turn the tables, so to speak, when confronting such assumptions.
I really don't want any additional attention taken from the point of this post, the ignorant sexism of WND and those who think like them. Ed, would you please remove ALL of my comments from this thread.
Posted by: Owen | January 7, 2010 12:12 PM
@30
The disagreement lies in your view that: "the statement implies that, because she is a woman, the most important thing about Ms. Simpson is her looks".
So you feel that regardless if the comment is made by man or woman, because she is a woman, the comment is sexist. Let's flip the other end then: the comment is made about a transgender man. Someone says that he is a good-looking man. Is that sexist?
Posted by: Jordan G | January 7, 2010 12:16 PM
Owen,
Ed doesn't usually remove comments, and I hope he doesn't remove yours. They don't subtract from this conversation; they add to it. Apparently you and I have a great deal in common, and I certainly believe that you too have suffered from demeaning assumptions connected with appearance. You inspire me to think carefully about whether I also make sexist assumptions to, as you say, "turn the tables." Thank you.
Posted by: JuliaL | January 7, 2010 12:19 PM
I had an idea it was all bovine effluent around the age of 8 too. This became readily apparent 5 years later when my mother had died, and the Catholic priest gave my father grief because he didn't think the family gave enough to the church.
Of course watching my father grab the priest by the neck was an interesting turn. Watching Fr. David's eyes but out under those thick Coke bottle glasses was funny.
I did 12 years of Catholic schools. Around my sophomore year it was confirmation time. I flat out told the priest I didn't believe any of it. Told him faith was just an artifact of circular reasoning. They confirmed me anyway.
That's the 'problem' with Catholic schools. They teach you critical thinking and logic skills. Then they try teaching the religious dogma. You can just guess what happens.
Ok, that out of the way, the religious bigots will always use a narrow focus to vilify someone. Either they're "Gay" or "Transsexual" or some other tag. It isn't that they fail to recognize us as humans first, it is just for their goals they need to create the class of the other. Otherwise how could they and their followers be God's special 'elect'?
Posted by: Tony P | January 7, 2010 12:24 PM
Owen wrote:
Particularly given that she's 49. Damn!
Posted by: Valhar2000 | January 7, 2010 12:24 PM
Jordan G, you appear to be trying to catch me out somehow, as if, if you find what you think is a logical inconsistency (due to your apparently shallow understanding of how sexism actually works), you can invalidate my entire point. But my point stands regardless of any other hypothetical situation.
If I have misread this, and you are actually trying to understand Sexism 101, then I will answer your question, but otherwise, I can't be bothered.
Posted by: MadGastronomer | January 7, 2010 12:27 PM
MadGastronomer
All I know is that if I was her, I would like Owen's comment. I would in no way be offended. Maybe because I am a guy, so it's difficult for me to empathize with females in this situation. But my understanding is that intention matters in sexism, and I feel it is safe to assume that Owen meant no harm in his comment. He was truly trying to pay her a compliment.
Maybe my understanding of sexism is shallow. I don't know. But I do know that consistency matters regardless of topic. Logical inconsistency is an argumentative fallacy, and can negate your point.
Then again, maybe I'm too logic-based. I'm trying to take an emotional topic (sexism), and interpret it in logical terms.
So yes, I am genuinely trying to understand sexism here. I obviously do not know the boundaries of it, and would like someone to state them in a manner which I can grasp.
Posted by: Jordan G | January 7, 2010 12:39 PM
TonyP, I'm curious, I thought that confirmation in the Catholic church was a ceremony where you had to take an active part reciting set words, drinking wine etc. Why could you not simply have kept your mouth shut or walked out? I'm assuming it wasn't fear or you wouldn't have confronted the priest in the first place.
Posted by: Matty | January 7, 2010 12:52 PM
Wow. It truly is a sad time when we can't complement someone's appearance without being called names and criticized for it.
Posted by: David Holland | January 7, 2010 12:53 PM
Owen - I don't think you have anything to be ashamed about regarding your quip @ 1.
I think your critics are missing the forest from the trees and failing to put your defense of Ms. Sampson into perspective and considering your obvious intentions (well, I thought it was obvious). For comedy to work it often needs a bit of an edge; intentions are everything when judging its integrity and our response. To relate your harmless quip with the bad intentions of those who JuliaL brings up is a piss-poor analysis on JuliaL's part.
I certainly don't regret laughing @1.
Posted by: Michael Heath | January 7, 2010 12:58 PM
Owen's comment didn't bother me because I took it as relating to Ed's statement:
None of that matters to them, of course, because all they can think about is "EWWWWWWWWW!"
In other words, I read it as an "anti-EWWWWWWW".
Posted by: Taz | January 7, 2010 12:59 PM
That's a pretty ageist statement.
Posted by: Abby Normal | January 7, 2010 1:01 PM
Belated [smirk]
Posted by: Abby Normal | January 7, 2010 1:04 PM
@MadGastronomer et al
Given that WND's "critique" amounts to sniggering revulsion at Amanda Simpson's sexuality, I'd say that Owen's comment is actually a chivalrous rebuttal.
He doesn't mention her qualifications, but given that they are enumerated in the post, why does he need to restate them?
Posted by: GilbertNSullivan | January 7, 2010 1:08 PM
CAPT Norm Holcomb, CHC, USN (Ret) ,
That's sad for you that you had that experience. If I belonged to a church that practiced "browbeating people about praying and reading the Bible as solutions to their problems and healing for their infirmities" I'd lose my stomach too.
Posted by: heddle | January 7, 2010 1:13 PM
Especially given that Owen is gay, that was my reading as well.
Posted by: Gretchen | January 7, 2010 1:14 PM
Michael Heath,
Ah, I see. Your emotional response was amusement, and your emotional response is to be accepted at face value. My emotional response was to be filled with bad memories, and that's somehow not an emotional response at all, but an "analysis," and a "piss-poor" one at that.
I asked Owen to explain. He explained. I understood, found common ground, and appreciated his explanation and his own memories. You're quite right that he has nothing to be ashamed of. I do, though, wonder where you're coming from.
Posted by: JuliaL | January 7, 2010 1:39 PM
CAPT Holcomb,
I thank you for your revealing and insightful posts today. They've been very helpful to me.
Those verses and a personal experience are also the foundations of my own attachment to Christianity, though I add Matthew 22: 35-40. I think there is a core of extremely important truth that gets covered up again and again as people in various times and places add on trappings. These add-ons at first may help the people involved to visualize and use their core insights, but gradually the extras become more important to them than the central core.
Your life's work has obviously been of great value to many people, and even in sharing here your uncertainties and questions, you continue to be of help.
Posted by: JuliaL | January 7, 2010 1:49 PM
the day an innocent, non-suggestive compliment to a persons looks is taken as sexism, is the day PC'ness has gone too far.
Posted by: Uncle Bob | January 7, 2010 1:50 PM
All I know is that if I was her, I would like Owen's comment. I would in no way be offended. Maybe because I am a guy, so it's difficult for me to empathize with females in this situation. But my understanding is that intention matters in sexism, and I feel it is safe to assume that Owen meant no harm in his comment. He was truly trying to pay her a compliment.
You are not a woman, and a comment about your looks does not have the same context or connotation as it does for a woman. Intent, as I have already said at least once in this conversation does not matter with regards to sexism. I never said that Owen's intent was sexist, only that the effect was, which it was.
Maybe my understanding of sexism is shallow. I don't know. But I do know that consistency matters regardless of topic. Logical inconsistency is an argumentative fallacy, and can negate your point.
Except that, since sexism applies to the different sexes in different ways, it is not logically consistent that the same things are sexist when applied to different sexes. It is much more rare for a man's worth to be judged by his looks alone that it is for a woman's worth to be so judged, especially in a professional context. To get a truly analogous situation, you'd have to change a lot about the details.
Look, it is a sexist stereotype that women know how to care for babies and that men do not. It is sexist, therefor, to assume that a particular woman knows how to care for a baby without knowing anything about her other than that she is a woman. However, since the same stereotype does not apply to men, it is not sexist to assume that a random man knows how to take care of a baby -- although it is presumptuous, if you know nothing else about him. Likewise, because a woman's looks have a different social weight to them than a man's, a comment about a woman's looks has a different meaning.
The best analogy I can come up with would be if a trans man was appointed assistant to the Secretary of Education (traditionally a woman's field, more or less), and there was a discussion in the entry about his long history as an educator, and the first comment was "He looks very strong." As if that had anything to do with his ability to do the job. That would be sexist.
In order for the situation to be analogous, and therefor logically consistent, the commented-upon attribute must be both something that is valued unreasonably highly about the sex of the person in question, and completely irrelevant to the person's ability to do the job. Does that make sense?
Wow. It truly is a sad time when we can't complement someone's appearance without being called names and criticized for it.
No one was called any names.
And it was a sadder and more sexist time when women's worth was judged by their beauty alone and no one questioned it.
I missed nothing about Owen's intent; it is his delivery which missed its mark.
@GilbertNSullivan
Chivalry is generally regarded as sexist, too. You're not helping anyone's case.
Posted by: MadGastronomer | January 7, 2010 1:53 PM
Nobody is allowed to criticize him, becuase it's just a joke! Amirite? I think everyone got the joke but that doesn't excuse it.
I wonder why I even bother to discuss the subtleties of sexism since it's probably futile. The reason it's sexist to discuss this woman's beauty is because it's not relevant to her position and men don't face the same level of scrutiny for physical appearance that women do. The questions isn't about whether she's attractive or not, but whether that matters towards her qualifications. By complimenting her looks, you're perpetuating the double standard and implying that it's somehow important or relevant. It's like when my mom says, "The cashier was a nice black guy" when she wouldn't describe a white guy that way. It doesn't mean she's racist or that she hates black people, but that I would or should care about the guy's race for whatever reason. Here's a good rule-of-thumb: ask yourself if you would make the same type of comment about a man in a similar position. If you wouldn't, then you probably shouldn't do it for a woman either. Of course a statement like that doesn't necessarily mean someone is sexist; it just means that person has not thought about the many subtleties of sexism.
Posted by: catgirl | January 7, 2010 1:55 PM
JuliaL,
In your post 22, you wrote:
"But his comment is certainly based on sexist assumptions."
Since MadGastronomer has moved on, I will ask you to explain your view of sexism. What is the sexist assumption?
And what I think is also important, if you were Ms. Simpson, would you be offended by Owen's remark? I just have a hard time grasping the idea that she would not take it as a compliment. The internet is known as a place where people don't hold back in criticism of public figures, so when someone praises one of them, is boggles me as to why that's a bad thing.
You seem to think that whenever anyone says something nice about a female's appearance, they are automatically also insulting the female's intelligence/character/ability/whatever. And that is a sad view to have of the world in my opinion. I understand it is based on your experiences, but that doesn't make the view true. Not everyone has the same prejudices.
Posted by: Jordan G | January 7, 2010 1:57 PM
Sorry MadGastronomer, I thought you had moved on.
Good response, and I see your point. I would like to treat men and women in the same manner though. That is my amateurish attempt at solving sexism.
Posted by: Jordan G | January 7, 2010 2:01 PM
JuliaL:
In this case I promote developing a tougher hide and perhaps a method to make your point with humor and/or more levity rather than sanctimony; especially in this case where was no moral equivalent to your experiences vs. both Owen's intentions and his actual words (i.e., a fallacy of balance).
Given I can tend towards stridency on other matters, I'm also not immune from requiring equivalent counsel.
Posted by: Michael Heath | January 7, 2010 2:02 PM
Jordan G,
Because you appear to be asking in good faith, I will answer. The sexist assumption is that the degree to which her appearance meets present-day European/American standards of beauty has any sort of connection whatsoever with either her job qualifications or her femaleness.
Suppose the thread had started with someone commenting, "Her watchband is certainly brown." You would probably have been bewildered, and might have inquired as to the relevance of that comment to the thread.
As I did not know the commenter, I could only note that the comment (assuming it was not totally meaningless) was connected to the sexist assumption that her appearance was somehow relevant to her job qualifications or her right to be considered a fenmale or to the WND remarks about those issues. So rather than simply saying (as I would have with the brown watchband remark), "what on earth are you talking about?" I shared that the sexist connections raise ugly memories for me, and asked for an explanation. The commenter gave an explanation.
No, certainly I don't think that every comment about a female's appearance is insulting.
And the question of sexism is not really about whether this one particular woman would be offended. A rough analogy may make that clearer: Growing up in the South, I have known black people with such low self-esteem that they accepted without offense being referred to as stupid or lazy or something else unpleasant. But such remarks were racist all the same.
I hope that helps.
Posted by: JuliaL | January 7, 2010 2:17 PM
Good response, and I see your point. I would like to treat men and women in the same manner though. That is my amateurish attempt at solving sexism.
That's a good goal, Jordan, but ignoring that society treats men and women differently doesn't actually bring you closer to it.
What is the sexist assumption?
That a woman's looks are her most noteworthy attribute.
And what I think is also important, if you were Ms. Simpson, would you be offended by Owen's remark?
Yes. It is possible to accept a compliment and still see that it is a sexist comment to make.
You seem to think that whenever anyone says something nice about a female's appearance, they are automatically also insulting the female's intelligence/character/ability/whatever.
*sigh* While it is often true that compliments about a woman's appearance also insult her intelligence and capability, that is not the sexist assumption at work here. The sexist assumption at work here, I say again is that a woman's looks are her more noteworthy and valuable attribute. They are not, especially not when we are discussing her profession. (Unless, of course, her looks are necessary for her profession, in which case we have a whole new ball of wax.)
And, well, I did mean it when I said that if you were actually trying to understand, I'd explain.
Posted by: MadGastronomer | January 7, 2010 2:19 PM
Thank you JuliaL and MadGastronomer for the discussion. I understand your side much better now.
I think that if it wasn't the first comment of the thread, it wouldn't have dominated the rest of the discussion, as comments before it may have focused on her qualifications.
Posted by: Jordan G | January 7, 2010 2:30 PM
Geez, lighten up, folks, Owen made a shallow and lighthearted remark in response to an extremely shallow, infantile, and downright pointlessly mean article in WND. This kind of joking response to mock-worthy rubbish like WND is a common form of humor here. What's wrong with mocking stupidity? I've done it myself (and not been called out on it like Owen was here), and so have other regulars. Hell, if I can turn Christian-Reich sexophobic hallucinations into porn-movie scenarios, why can't Owen call a TG woman good-looking?
(Besides, I, for one, think it worth noting that the GR op went very well for Simpson: she actually looks like she was female all her life, which leads me to the (offhand and uninformed) conclusion that she was indeed somehow "meant" to be a woman, and was right to opt for the sex-change. I've seen other TG women who just ended up looking like a bloke in a dress, so I'm glad Simpson managed to avoid that fate.)
If the WND had tried to raise serious substantive questions about Simpson's actual qualifications or suitability for the job, than, yes, Owen's comment #1 would have been out of line. But this wasn't an article that deserved to be taken seriously; so why are we so serious about our responses to it?
Posted by: Raging Bee | January 7, 2010 2:31 PM
Michael Heath,
I do now see where you were coming from. And I agree that you are quite right about his intentions, which I did not know until he explained.
I do not agree, however, that you are right about the actual words. Those exact words and other similar phrases, generally used just this way - without additional verbal context- have been routinely employed for generations to trivialize a woman's work, comments, and intellectual contributions. Anyone who responds to a discussion concerning not only a woman's job qualifications but implications (the WND use of the male pronouns) that she is not really a True Woman at all, by using one of the standard denigrating phrases should expect that it might rouse some strong negative feelings among those who have had those same phrases used against them as weapons.
I will, however, take to heart your warning to maintain a balance. It's always good advice.
Posted by: JuliaL | January 7, 2010 3:06 PM
Owen: "Nice looking woman."
MadGastronomer: "Yes, Owen, because her looks are what's important about her."
My first thought, on seeing those two messages (I saw them simultaneously) was, "Uh-oh, here we go again." — referring to the thread on how staring at well-built women prolonged men's lives. (For newcomers, it's an urban legend: totally false.)
I'm pleased to find my first thought was wrong.
My own reaction to Owen's three-word comment was that it indicated calm acceptance of Ms. Simpson's identity — and that this was admirable in contrast to WND's stance.
Granted, it could be sexist; but there was no context for thinking that, and there was context — the WND article — for not thinking so.
Posted by: Chris Winter | January 7, 2010 3:07 PM
Those exact words and other similar phrases, generally used just this way - without additional verbal context- have been routinely employed for generations to trivialize a woman's work, comments, and intellectual contributions.
Well, wasn't the WND article, and Ed's post mocking it, enough "context" to understand the real meaning and intent of Owen's comment?
The WND article, and Ed's response to it, had absolutely nothing to do with Simpson's work, comments, or intellectual contributions; and neither do our comments. The subject here is WND's infantile bigotry and stupidity, which has no place in grownup debate even if Simpson turns out to be totally unqualified for the job.
Posted by: Raging Bee | January 7, 2010 3:17 PM
Given that comments sometimes share Ed's perspective, sometimes disagree with Ed's perspective, are sometimes joking, are sometimes sarcastic, are sometimes serious, and sometimes go off on tangents, and given that Owen's comment has been interpreted several different ways on this thread by rational people, including those who supported it believing it to be a joke and those who supported it believing it to be nothing more than a sincere compliment, I would say the answer appears to be no.
Posted by: JuliaL | January 7, 2010 3:25 PM
I am a woman. I am a feminist. That was my first thought on viewing Simpson, too. It's human nature. Personally, I was relieved on her account, because we all know what the bashing would be like if she were anything less than nice-looking, let alone retained certain male identifiers; they would no doubt soon appear in cartoons & vids all over Christiania. It's occurred to me more than once that the willingness to take on the inevitable sexism, not to mention to give up the veritable "get in free" card that goes with white maleness, is one of the strongest indicators we have that male-to-female transgenderism is a biological fact.
It occurs to me that it is also a reflection of our lookist species that no one gives a f*** about what the female-to-male guest in the SJR vid looks like. (Maybe you did, Owen? :D [Note: attended solely as mild humor amongst people who sort of know each other])
BTW, was anyone else surprised to find such a totally supportive, comparatively long vid posted at WND? They don't really want their readers exposed to something like that, do they?
Sigh. Change a few words and that describes my marriage...
--Diane
Posted by: Diane G. | January 7, 2010 3:26 PM
D. C. Sessions wrote: " wonder if they'll swear off using electronics designed with Mead-Conway methods."
This was a surprise. I knew Lynn Conway is a woman, but had no idea that she is transgender. I knew Carver Mead isn't; he had a daughter (who was killed during a mugging.)
To confirm the assumption prompted by your comment, I used "the google."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynn_Conway
That's quite a career Ms. Conway has. No question about qualifications there...
Posted by: Chris Winter | January 7, 2010 3:27 PM
Even though the man had his pecker removed and he now looks sort of like a woman, he is still a man at heart.
Can you define what being "a man at heart" means? And what, exactly, do you know about this person's heart that we (or she, for that matter) don't?
God made him male and he will be that way for eternity.
And you know this how? Did you yourself acquire any intimate knowledge of this person's body, heart, mind, or soul that no one else has? Did God show you the blueprints for this person? Or did you manage to hack into God's internal emails?
Posted by: Raging Bee | January 7, 2010 3:32 PM
One more question, Sad Rigid Closed-Minded Unadaptable Normal Person: first you refer to Simpson as "it" (as if she isn't even a living creature in your eyes, let alone human), and then you insist on calling her "he" and insisting "he" is "a man at heart." If you know so much about this person's heart and what's good for her and what God indended her to be like, then why can't you even make up your mind about her gender?
You're obviously not as smart as you think you are.
Posted by: Raging Bee | January 7, 2010 3:53 PM
Pat? Is that you?
Posted by: Diane G. | January 7, 2010 3:57 PM
I think you have very shallow understanding of people. It seemed clear to me that Owen was responding to efforts to brand Simpson as a freak. His comment was exactly the sort of observation that would irritate bigots who would belittle a transgendered person. It was not demeaning, except in your overworked imagination.
If this had been a man, and someone commented on his being handsome, I would not take that to mean that the commenter was demeaning his fitness for the job. When I detect a sense of good faith and decency in another person, I don't require them to qualify and (defensively) frame everything they say.
When I tell my wife that she's gorgeous, I don't have to qualify it with statements about how smart and talented she is, how capable she is and how good she is. I comment on those qualities at other times, but sometimes she likes to hear that she's beautiful, without qualifications. I am unreservedly unapologetic for enjoying her physical beauty and allowing her to bask in my appreciation of it.
While Simpson wants to be known for her abilities and her qualifications, I doubt that she would be offended by someone also noticing that she's attractive, given that the statement was made in opposition to those who would brand her as some sort of undesirable.
Posted by: Dr X | January 7, 2010 3:58 PM
Okay. Can you prove that?
Posted by: Raging Bee | January 7, 2010 3:59 PM
"I referred to Simpson as "it" becuase of the fact that he/she cannot make of his/her mind as to what gender he/she wishes to be."
Really? Because it seems to me she's quite clear about her gender. "Normal Person", your Poe-fu is really weak.
Posted by: RickR | January 7, 2010 4:03 PM
I referred to Simpson as "it" becuase of the fact that he/she cannot make of his/her mind as to what gender he/she wishes to be.
She got the GR surgery and shows no sign of wanting to reverse it. Looks like her mind's pretty well made up to me.
Is it really that confusing?
Only to you, apparently.
Posted by: Raging Bee | January 7, 2010 4:09 PM
You're an asshole. Simpson has made it crystal clear that her mind is made up. She is a woman.
Posted by: Dr X | January 7, 2010 4:11 PM
You know, I didn't consider Owen's original comment to be all that sexist or objectionable, but unless Valhar2000 is kidding around, I find this statement appalling. It suggests that female attractiveness has a "sell-by" date, one that presumably doesn't apply to men. I don't like it.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | January 7, 2010 4:25 PM
How nice of you to decide for Amanda Simpson what her own identity is.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | January 7, 2010 4:27 PM
However, he/she did not change what God created - a man.
I asked you to show us what knowledge you had to back up your assertions about a person you seem never to have met. You still have yet to comply with our request.
In eternity her sould will revert back to what it is now - male.
How do you know this? Can you prove it?
Posted by: Raging Bee | January 7, 2010 4:29 PM
I think you have very shallow understanding of people. It seemed clear to me that Owen was responding to efforts to brand Simpson as a freak. His comment was exactly the sort of observation that would irritate bigots who would belittle a transgendered person. It was not demeaning, except in your overworked imagination.
*yawn* "Overworked imagination"? Are you going to call me hysterical next?
Your argument is substanceless, a clear attempt at silencing. You have nothing reasonable to say, only the same stale quibbles I and others have already addressed on this thread.
My own reaction to Owen's three-word comment was that it indicated calm acceptance of Ms. Simpson's identity — and that this was admirable in contrast to WND's stance.
While, once again, I see that that was Owen's intent -- and figured it probably was from the first -- the effect is still sexist.
Geez, lighten up, folks
Yes, because all feminists are so humorless! You are, much like others, trying to shut us up and dismiss our concerns. What, are you that desperate not to think about sexism?
why can't Owen call a TG woman good-looking?
Oh, he can, obviously, as he did. But by doing so, he played into the sexist assumption that the important thing about a woman is her appearance.
Seriously, the only way he could think to affirm her femaleness was to compliment her looks?
I've seen other TG women who just ended up looking like a bloke in a dress, so I'm glad Simpson managed to avoid that fate.
Congratulations, you now sound almost as bad as Normal Person.
You, too, are playing into the idea that looks are what matter in a woman.
Now I really am stepping out. I need some sleep.
Posted by: MadGastronomer | January 7, 2010 4:31 PM
OK, "Normal Person", prove that-
1) Something called a "soul" actually exists, and
2) It has naughty bits. Why would a "soul" need genitalia? Are folks doing the nasty in heaven?
Posted by: RickR | January 7, 2010 4:32 PM
Normal Person, why would you assume a soul needs a sexual identity?
Posted by: Owen | January 7, 2010 4:33 PM
Don't shoot the messenger. Like it or not, female attractiveness DOES have a "sell-by" date. Ask Hollywood.
Posted by: Diane G. | January 7, 2010 4:35 PM
You know, the fact that people continue to engage this extremely poor quality poe is very depressing.
Posted by: JohnV | January 7, 2010 4:37 PM
My guess is that he's clearly so obsessed with rigid notions of gender identity that he can't conceptualize his religious ideas about souls without them.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | January 7, 2010 4:38 PM
Diane G, I don't accept that as an answer. Just because Hollywood (and Madison Avenue) have marketed a sell-by date for women does not mean that it's in any way reflective of reality. The only reason that such a "sell-by" date was marketed to begin with is that the male masterminds behind the idea believed that women were valuable primarily for their sex appeal, and once that sex appeal (read: fertility) began to wane, women were no longer worthy of consideration.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | January 7, 2010 4:41 PM
Now how would we determine what a particular soul's sexual identity is? Is it necessarily determined by the physical genitalia a person has? Or is it determined by the more amorphous, "I feel like a male/female"? It seems to me that if the soul is real and has some effect on who and what we are, then the latter is far more likely to be an effect of the soul than is the particular structure of a particular organ. The gender that a person really, internally, mentally, and emotionally feels like--that is probably the gender of their soul.
Posted by: James Hanley | January 7, 2010 4:44 PM
Your argument is substanceless, a clear attempt at silencing.
Well, if you're going to equate disagreement with censorship and repression, then we probably WILL call you "hysterical."
You, too, are playing into the idea that looks are what matter in a woman.
Um, no, I'm merely pointing out certain facts as I see them, and offering an opinion that I already admitted was non-expert and irrelevant, with no expectation that anyone else will think they "matter."
Now I really am stepping out. I need some sleep.
Yeah, that's quite apparent.
Posted by: Raging Bee | January 7, 2010 4:46 PM
Yep. Poe.
I wonder- I had my gall bladder removed when I was 17. Will I get it back in heaven? Can I eat more Italian food in the hereafter??
Posted by: RickR | January 7, 2010 4:49 PM
Is it getting simpler yet?
The only thing "getting simpler" is you. All you're doing is repeating the same nonsense over and over, without offering any proof or even citing a reliable source for your assertions. You might just as well keep saying "Nevertheless the world is flat" over and over.
Posted by: Raging Bee | January 7, 2010 4:51 PM
I think it is somewhat appropriate that females be given veto power when it comes to judging whether a remark is sexist. This idea also applies to minorities perception of racism- ( White people should probably avoid instructing minorities as to what costitutes racism).
Mark Duran
Posted by: Mark Duran | January 7, 2010 4:53 PM
If not, it ain't heaven. ;)
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | January 7, 2010 4:55 PM
I am amused at "Normal Person's" use of the term goobers. Maybe I'm wrong but a goober is a peanut and not a penis. Maybe NP is hung like a peanut?
Posted by: wrpd | January 7, 2010 4:57 PM
Normal Person:
Contrary to what you might have drawn from your religious beliefs, gender is not a binary construct with males on one side and females on the other side. It's a continuum, which (at the very least) contains male, female, not-male, not-female, androgenous, and neuter. And to be clear, this refers only to gender identity, not sexual orientation, which is something very different.
And that doesn't even touch on people born intersexed, with double sets (or no sets) of external genitalia or chromosomal abnormalities that don't match the external genitalia. Known intersex conditions caused by chromosomal abnormalities include Klinefelter's Syndrome, Turner's Syndrome, complete and partial androgen insensitivity syndrome, 5-alpha reductase deficiency. People with CAIS and PAIS are female in phenotype, but their chromosomes are 46,XY, and their condition is due to a lack of receptors for androgens such as testosterone. Klinefelter's Syndrome is a condition where a male possesses an extra X chromosome (47,XXY). Turner's Syndrome is monosomy X, or damage to one of the two X chromosomes in a female genotype (45,X).
I'm simplifying here, but as I understand it, the current theory for one cause of gender dysphoria is that the brain begins to develop before the genitalia, and both processes are dependent upon and sensitive to hormonal changes in the womb. So what essentially happens is that someone can, literally, be born with a brain that developed along 'male' lines, and a body that, due to a drop in testosterone at a later point in gestation, is female. Or vice versa.
This is a real condition. It has real causes. And your attitude contributes to the very real, escalated danger of assault, rape and murder faced by transpeople who are just trying to live their lives as the people they are.
And one last thought: Because of the extensive counselling requirements imposed upon the transgendered who wish to transition and pursue GR surgery, Amanda Simpson knows exactly who and what she is, having examined herself and her motives over and over again. Have you examined your own thoughts, your own preferences, that profoundly? That fundamentally?
I submit to you, "Normal Person", that perhaps you should. You might learn something.
Posted by: Jennifer B. | January 7, 2010 5:07 PM
My point was that it doesn't really matter what you (or I) buy. There is a reality out there regarding overall societal norms & female attractiveness. We can rail against it, but it's not going to get us far.
That tends to be my guiding principle as well. Good words to live by. (I hate saying "I'm offended by X" and being told, "No, you're NOT!" Huh? So when another non-privileged group speaks out, I think it's wiser to listen than to argue.)
(The initial comment here that set off the discussion, though (Owen's), would be one of my few exceptions, for many of the aforementioned reasons, esp. the one about having some notion as to who Owen is & where he's coming from...and given the specific subject of this post.)
Posted by: Diane G. | January 7, 2010 5:13 PM
Maybe a few more words would clarify my position on this issue. If a person objects to something that they percieve is sexist or racist, and that person is a member of a group that has not enjoyed the priivledge or power that white heterosexual males have, their objection should be respected more than the counterarguments of white heterosexual males. Any other perspective seems to me to perpetuate racism and sexism.
Just sayin...
Mark Duran
Posted by: Mark Druan | January 7, 2010 5:33 PM
I guess I'm optimistic enough to hope that, by railing against statements that demean "older" women, we can gradually help society come around to the reality that those statements are extremely sexist and offensive. People don't generally go around making blatantly racist comments anymore (I know, it depends on the setting, but broadly speaking), and that's partially because enough people rallied against racism to effectively make it taboo.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | January 7, 2010 5:38 PM
If this thread has demonstrated anything, it is the reasons behind the constant hammering the American Left receives and why it is unable to respond effectively.
Posted by: History Punk | January 7, 2010 6:05 PM
"If this thread has demonstrated anything, it is the reasons behind the constant hammering the American Left receives and why it is unable to respond effectively."
Because you can't respond effectively to blatant stupidity?
Posted by: Rutee | January 7, 2010 7:01 PM
I think I had a brain fart.
Posted by: Rutee | January 7, 2010 7:22 PM
I used to be optimistic, too. In the past 40 or so years, I've seen huge changes in the lack of acceptance of slurs against racial minorities & gays. (Notice that doesn't necessarily mean attitudes have changed nearly as much.) But very little change regarding women (& atheists, need I add!). I'm no longer optimistic. I'd love to be wrong, but I'd bet you a considerable amount that nothing will have changed in this regard in the next 40 years. Or the next 400.
Posted by: Diane G. | January 7, 2010 7:49 PM
Heh, what is it with transgender women and rocket science?
See also Zoe Brain: http://aebrain.blogspot.com/
Posted by: Cath the Canberra Cook | January 7, 2010 8:03 PM
I wasn't able to watch the video until just now. Very nice. Really liked the pony tail. The point Michael made at about 7:35 was very good.
I'm always amazed by people like Amanda and Michael. The courage to take the steps they have made is beyond what I can imagine. I wish I had about 1/10th of it.
Posted by: Owen | January 7, 2010 8:07 PM
Owen,
To save time (not that it's not worth listening to again), would you please remind me of what point you're speaking about? Was it about LGBT people having reasons to avoid the health care community? Or was it the point about "it really doesn't matter so much who you're sleeping with as how blatant you are to be around?"(I can't quite remember his exact phrase, obviously! sigh)
Michael made a LOT of good points! (So did Amanda.)
Posted by: Diane G. | January 7, 2010 8:14 PM
Diane, it was the "how blatant you are" comment about inclusion of gender identity in protections.
One day one of my friends came into the bar and announced, people don't mind if your gay as long as you don't act like it. It was kind of an epiphany for him after interacting with his straight neighbors and he was quite happy to have discovered this sign of tolerance.
Problem is, sometimes you forget. Not to worry though, even if you're simply walking down the street someone will certainly remind you of how you're supposed to act.
Posted by: Owen | January 7, 2010 8:23 PM
Isn't nice how helpful some people can be? ;-[
Sort of the whole idea behind "don't ask, don't tell." Don't ask, don't tell, and for f***'s sake, don't let on. Live a lie and we'll all be happy...
BTW, I agree with you totally about the courage these people (like Amanda & Michael) show.
(Good on Obama, too.)
Posted by: Diane G. | January 7, 2010 8:44 PM
JohnV "You know, the fact that people continue to engage this extremely poor quality poe is very depressing."
Do you know what's really depressing? Sad puppy. Great, now I’m depressed.
Normal Person "You know, we can;t go around calling each other rednecks, we are Appalacian Americans."
No. You're a redneck.
"The answer is yes. We the dead are ressurected and Jesus judges every living being since the beinning of time and those who are saved are in Heaven we will have perfect bodies. No sickness, no death, no pain."
So I get my wisdom tooth back? "Perfect working order" or not (it worked perfectly. It just didn't happen to fit in my mouth), that doesn't sound like Heaven to me.
"There will be a huge feast to celebrate the defeat of the wicked."
Wrong. The people in hell aren't necessarily wicked (nor are the ones in heaven good). The people in hell failed to believe the right thing.
"Besides, before the flood in Noah's time the earth was technically flat. Of course I am not saying the earth was flat. i am saying that the mountains we see today did not exist then. As a matter of fact I doubt wether any mountains at all existed before that global catastrophe…etc, etc."
Ah, a reality-denialist. Good luck with that. If you're going to be wrong, you might as well go all the way.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | January 7, 2010 9:05 PM
LOL!
That is the stupidest thing I've read since Reverend Pollen's great opus on Blackwater and homosexuality.
Posted by: Leni | January 7, 2010 9:25 PM
Reverend Pollen "Yes your wisdom tooth will be there and it will be fixed to fit your mouth."
But it's fixed to fit my mouth now. By not being in it.
"You are mostlty right on hell."
I am? Well, that's once. Not all people in hell are bad people and not all people in heaven are good people. What is "justice" when a serial killer cannibal who is Saved goes to heaven while his unSaved victims go straight from the frying pan to the fire, as it were?
"Everything you see in the universe is the result of God's creation wether you believe it or not."
Everything? So it's God's fault?
Posted by: Modusoperandi | January 7, 2010 9:51 PM
Damn, I hate coming in late to a discussion. All the good stuff has been said. Oh well, I'll still throw my two cents worth in to the sexism debate that Owen's comment raised.
1) It seems to me that the terms sexism and racism (or *ist), etc are thrown out too often to stifle reasonable criticism or debate. For example, legitimate questioning or criticism of ideas or behaviours is not sexist or racist (nor persecution - take note certain Christians). (Point 1 does not apply to this thread)
2) Context is everything. Owen's statement was his opinion about how this woman looks, and was apropos of the article and Ed's comments (as Owen later articulated). Had he said or implied that she looks attractive and therefore she could not do her job, etc, etc, then that would have been sexism. MadGastronomer and JuliaL interpreted Owen's comments in light of their own experiences, and came to a conclusion that was neither implied nor made explicit.
3) We need to be careful of being aggrieved on behalf of a) some other "group", or b) the totality of our "group", as demonstrated by a number of woman here who said that they did not find the comment sexist. Apropos of point 2 (above) our experiences and mental models of the world shape how we see or interpret things. And these are different for every person.
4) It is possible for someone to be appreciated for their looks as well as the raft of their other attributes, without these qualifiers having to be stated each time, and without this having any bearing on their capacity or value.
Damn, my two cents is up.
Posted by: KiwiInOz | January 7, 2010 9:59 PM
"...your justice is not God's."
So what, that just means that the "you" in "your justice" has a more moral system of justice than God has.
Posted by: daniel rotter | January 7, 2010 10:06 PM
Reverend Pollen "It may seem wrong to you, but your justice is not God's."
So (and feel free to correct me if I'm taking this the wrong way), what you're saying is that words are meaningless? If His justice is not my justice and His ways are not my ways, then what is "good"? If it's good when He does it but bad when I do it, if He bears no responsibility for His Creation (other than, apparently, to do with it what He pleases, being perfect, apparently, but nonetheless succeeding in creating imperfection), then what is "good"? What is it, really?
If a perfect Judge can't even get proportional punishment (and proportional reward) right, is that Judge really perfect?
If "A poor workman blames his tools", and God blames Man for being what He made, then is God a poor workman?
If a perfect Creator, incapable of and intolerant of imperfection, perfectly makes Man imperfectly (assuming for this post that the fictional Adam & Eve are non-fictional), is it the fault of the Creation or the Creator?
"Either you are saved or not."
False dichotomy. Parts of me are saved. Except for my evil ball. Obviously.
"Which one are you?"
I'm whichever one doesn't mistake reality-denial and small-minded douchery for piety and righteousness.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | January 7, 2010 10:14 PM
Normal Person's first sentence at @72: You're being nonsensical. Simpson obviously wants to be a man. By your logic, any person who decides to convert from one religion to another "can't decide what religion he/she wants to follow."
Posted by: daniel rotter | January 7, 2010 10:27 PM
KiwiinOz - Exactly. Adding to your comment:
5) If I say that Amanda Simpson's watchband is brown, that in no way reflects on her ability as a rocket scientist, or anything else about her.
If I say George Clooney is handsome that doesn't mean he is a terrible actor, if I say Barack Obama is black that doesn't mean he's a bad President and so on. Comments about a person's physical appearence can not be used to draw negative inferences about that person's professional competence, (unless they are in some way related).
Are you suggesting that the mere fact that Owen finds Amanda Simpson attractive negates her skills as a scientist? By what mechanism is her alleged attractiveness reducing her abilities?* - Dingo
----------------------
* And for that matter, do scientists have to be unattractive? Is it a rule? Who got to decide?
Posted by: DingoJack | January 7, 2010 10:33 PM
The funny part, Rev Pollen, is that if you're right, I'll see you there. I'll be sure to save you some...irony.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | January 7, 2010 10:35 PM
@ DingoJack - And for that matter, do scientists have to be unattractive?
Hey! I resemble that remark.
Posted by: KiwiInOz | January 7, 2010 10:39 PM
YIkes, I meant "Simpson obviously wants to be a woman."
Posted by: daniel rotter | January 7, 2010 10:39 PM
Rev Pollen, 'Normal'Guy - Comments on a person's sexuality (or the presence or absence of imagined places or beings) doesn't reflect on their professional competence either.
The only question is can she do the job? The evidence is yes, very much so. End of story. - Dingo
Posted by: DingoJack | January 7, 2010 10:46 PM
Translation of N.P. @129: The Amanda Simpsons of the world need to be unemployed.
Posted by: daniel rotter | January 7, 2010 11:09 PM
Since she has decisively chosen to have the gender reassignment already, she clearly has no problem with making big decisions. Also, are her surgeries actually relevant to her current position? Would a person who decided to have surgery to reconstruct their knee be disqualified from being Secretary of the Treasury (say) even if they were hugely qualified?
So, what is it about Amanda Simpson that really bothers you? I mean apart from the fairly self-evident castration anxiety you seem to exhibit. - Dingo
Posted by: DingoJack | January 7, 2010 11:19 PM
If WND freaks out this much over a functionary, how would they react to an American version of Georgina Beyer?
Posted by: James K | January 8, 2010 12:00 AM
Everyone tends to get uglier with age, whether they are men or women. I'd have to say that, looking at the photo of Simpson, she looks like she's younger than 49. Of course, I've never been a very good judge of age.
Posted by: Vic Viper | January 8, 2010 1:11 AM
And, yes, beauty has a "sell-by" date. Just look at my scrotum. Look at it! It used to ride high and proud, filled with youthful exuberance, greeting each day with a newfound, frisky joy. Now it just hangs there, shamed, drooping ever lower, moving a little closer to the ground (where the gaping maw of its grave patiently awaits) every year.
Sad puppy is sad, most probably, because he contemplated the steadily wrinkling agedness of his own scrotum, whose time in the sun is surely passing.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | January 8, 2010 1:28 AM
Diane G,
I can certainly understand your loss of optimism, but I think some things do change for the better.
Laws in the United States have improved. Forty years ago, I was newly pregnant and working for a state that fired (not laid off) all pregnant women. This led to an amusing nine months in which I and my boss loudly bemoaned my sudden overeating and obesity, while ignoring the stares at my belly and the male Department Head's occasional mutterings of "But surely she's -----."
Forty years ago, the men I worked with defended sexism openly. I went to the same graduate school as a male friend whose Graduate Record Exams scores and college grades were lower than mine, and whose references were not as good. He and I did exactly the same work as graduate assistants. His pay was about a third higher than mine. When I complained to the male Department Head, he said, "We always pay women less." When I asked why, he said, "We just do." Now when called on sexist behavior and remarks, many men acknowledge that it's a problem and make changes. Others justify and excuse, and while that may seem to indicate that nothing has changed, the mere effort they make to argue that the behavior and remarks do not negate the woman's value as a person is a huge change.
A man who continues to support the making of the same comments that have caused women so much grief in the past, and who argues that (even in the context of discussing a professional issue or someone else's notion that a transgendered person can't be a real woman) it's just fine to throw in gratuitous personal judgments about the degree to which the woman meets their standards of sexual attractiveness, is likely to still insist, and really mean, that women may be qualified for the same work as men: that's an admirable improvement. Forty years ago, it was common for men at all educational levels to declare openly that women had no place in the workforce at all except to do housekeeping-type chores like minding phones and cleaning up the paperwork for the males who made all the decisions. I was told openly that my very being in graduate school was taking up a space that rightly belonged to males.
It used to be that thirty was the generally understood "sell-by" date, while I think there's now a growing public awareness of attractive sexuality in women in their forties.
Change comes slowly, and none of us is perfect, but it's happening. WND is an example of typical attitudes forty and more years ago. The people who comment frequently on this thread are examples of the overall change in the direction of treating all human beings with equal dignity and respect. I hope you'll get some of your optimism back.
Posted by: JuliaL | January 8, 2010 3:07 AM
Is this the same Peter LaBarbera who keeps attending the Chicago Hellfire Club's "Inferno" event so he can breathlessly report that this year the leathermen are still doing the same perverted things they've been doing for decades?
Talk about a closet case...
Posted by: Voyeur | January 8, 2010 4:25 AM
Just look at my scrotum. Look at it!
Now am I allowed to say EWWWWWW?
Posted by: Matty | January 8, 2010 5:07 AM
Owen @1 was very funny. Like someone said before, the compliment was meant to contrast WND's use of the male pronoun. Though it does contain a a degree of insult if used to determine the professional aptitude of the individual, I doubt this was Owen's intent. He didn't say "nice looking woman ... she should get the job". He didn't even qualify his statement, so why should anyone presume he meant her ability for the job or the quality of her character?
There are too many analytical people on the Internet.
Posted by: Shawn Wilkinson | January 8, 2010 5:21 AM
This comparison leaves out some key aspects that make it quite useless.
First, opponents of the appointment would have to make numerous sexist comments talking about how "SHE" is ugly and how having to explain why "SHE" has a penis, all ignoring HIS qualifications.
Second, an openly gay woman who describes herself as "butch" would then have to say, "I think he's handsome."
Then you would have an equal comparison. Would it still be a sexist statement? Possibly, would it still be an intentional use of sexism to point out the stupidity of the opposition making it more than worthwhile and valid, certainly.
Like Michael I understood Owen's point. I also understood Julia's point. But this comparison does nothing but muddy the water and unfairly paint Owen's comment as well as those who are trying to defend Owen.
Simple point is, the morons who oppose Ms. Simpson's appointment do so because, as Ed put it, the "EWWWWWWW" factor that is utterly meaningless, hateful, and obnoxious. Above and beyond the fact that they ignore her impressive qualifications for the job, they intentionally and hurtfully ignore the very real feelings that SHE has as a woman and insist upon referring to HER as a man in very asinine and insulting ways. Owen, a gay man who has presumably faced similar slights and insults questioning his gender, sexuality, right to express his emotions, etc., made a comment as a HUMAN BEING, that intentionally directly assaulted their hurtful comments with a complement intended to use their own sexist myopic arguments against them. From my point of view Owen's comment can be seen as a massively powerful confirmation of the difficult choices she had to make, the painful surgeries she had to endure, the idiotic statements, sidelong glances, and hurtful actions of others she has been submitted to. This woman had to come to grips that a twist of fate and nature's sense of humor put her in a male body. She had to deal with her feelings, both internal feelings towards herself and external feelings towards those she cared about who may (and some likely did) abandon her because of the circumstances that were entirely beyond her control. She had to go through the gut wrenching decision to go through a long, painful experience, both physically and psychologically. Owen's comment, whether it is sexist or not, confirms her decision. She is an attractive woman, the surgeries were successful. She appears happy, has a successful career, appears healthy.
I would argue that Owen's comment is along the lines of telling an openly gay man (or woman) that they and their (husband/wife) make a beautiful couple. Similar choices had to be made, similar sacrifices (minus the surgery) had to be endured. Would that be inappropriate because a third party sees it as a "snide comment" about their marriage?
Too often here lately people here get bent out of shape attaching their own mental baggage to other people's comments not knowing anything about their intent, not bothering to listen to them when they explain their attempt, dismissing the accused person's explanation and maintaining their own preconceived position on the issue regardless of their stated reasoning or intent. It really gets old very fast when you can look at a comment, personally understand what someone else meant, and know for a fact that the comment is going to lead to a shit storm of incriminations, accusations, and insults.
Posted by: dogmeatib | January 8, 2010 9:22 AM
Captain Holcomb,
I found your description of your own experience quite interesting. Personally I went through the motions of believing as a child and young man, but didn't really think about it that much to any serious degree. I was torn between my mother who, I think, maintained a tiny, internal, hopeful flame of belief but was really little more than a "holiday Christian," and my grandmother who was a very devout Catholic. I can remember my mom "making" me go to church with my grandmother really to make her happy, which as I grew older seemed to really make me wonder what the true goal was. As I progressed through high school and young adult life I read the Bible, studied history, and came to the conclusion that it was all a collection of fairy tales. That is my only quibble with your argument in that you say today's Christianity has become fraudulent, I would argue that it always has, or at least it has since the religion became dominant in any one region. Prior to that, as a suppressed minority, subject to torture and death, etc., then, perhaps it had a true "Christian" purpose and followed through with the theory of the theology. But since it has been the dominant religion, it has been a corrupt, fraudulent lie. Suppressing the rights of others, coercively and forcibly converting people, torturing and murdering people for alleged transgressions as silly as "dancing with the devil," and idiocy of the like. Personally, based upon my decades now of studying and teaching history, I truly fail to see how the negatives of Christianity (and really religion in general) don't outweigh the hypothetical positives.
Having said that, I also wanted to tell you, one of the few times I actually did enjoy religion was when I was in the military. The chaplains were much as you describe your own experience, and the overall experience for a young kid miles from home for his first really extended period of time, was a good one. Perhaps the key was that they didn't push faith on me or my peers, instead provided support, guidance, etc. Unfortunately, from the incidents that Ed has posted here and other stories I've read over the last few years, it seems like this non-confrontational, open, helpful chaplain service is growing increasingly scarce and may be a thing of the past. It's a shame because, from my perspective, their actions are actually pushing more people away than they are drawing people "into the fold." Most of the Christians I know today are social Christians who have chosen not to leave the faith because, IMHO, they have invested too much time and emotional energy to admit that it may have been a waste of time.
Posted by: dogmeatib | January 8, 2010 9:37 AM
Wow! 49, smart, and pretty. Is she married?
Posted by: Tom | January 8, 2010 1:22 PM
Let's be clear... most men and women don't look quite as attractive at 49 as they do at 29. The hair line recedes, a few pounds pile on, the wrinkles start to show up, the boobs droop a bit. That isn't ageist or sexist. It's just a fact of life.
Posted by: Tom | January 8, 2010 1:29 PM
Tom,
It isn't the "facts of life" that could warrant labels of ageism or sexism: it's the judgments made about those facts.
For example, here it's your judgment (widely shared) that these men and women you describe aren't as attractive as others. But there's nothing necessary about those judgments.
There are and/or have been societies in which various of these items are considered very attractive indeed. In some places today, fat women are considered much more beautiful than thin ones. I remember years ago reading an article that focused on the life of a particular young woman in a small tribe. One thing she did each day was to roughly massage and stretch her breasts; she explained that she was ugly because her breasts were too high and firm. She wanted to look like the older woman in her group who was admired and considered beautiful because, after breastfeeding many children, her average-sized breasts drooped almost to her waist.
(Please do notice that I'm not intending to criticize you; I'm commenting on the meaning of "ageism" and "sexism."
Posted by: JuliaL | January 8, 2010 1:52 PM
Julia L:
Isn't a culture that find markers of age attractive just as ageist as one that finds markers of youth attractive?
Posted by: James k | January 8, 2010 3:01 PM
James K,
If the culture finds the markers of both youth and age attractive, then it presumably wouldn't be ageist about appearance.
I wasn't arguing that the other societies I mentioned were somehow not at all ageist or sexist. I used the examples to point out to Tom that judgments about what is beauty and what isn't are changeable opinions, not a "fact of life," and that it is the judgments that are being referred to with terms like ageism and sexism. The fact that an older face is more likely to have wrinkles doesn't necessitate the judgment that the face becomes less beautiful as it wrinkles.
Posted by: JuliaL | January 8, 2010 3:13 PM
dogmeatib:
I anticipated the comment about "today's Christianity has become fraudulent" and considered rephrasing it but was probably too lazy to add a couple of qualifying comments. I am aware of the historical abuses that can be enumerated. My comment was limited to what I have observed during my lifetime.
And yes, you are correct about the make-up of today's Chaplain Corps. There are fewer mainline denominational chaplains and more and more "fringe, evangelical, fundamentalist" chaplains. Many are graduates of bible schools and seminaries that teach nothing but their own particular views on religion. Consequently, breadth and depth of church history and theology are missing from their educations.
I think that many people do come to the realization that involvement with religion as a "stand alone" entity has been pretty much a waste of time in that the stories by themselves simply do not "hold water." I use the term "stand alone" because I believe that religion in tandem with history, philosophy, psychology and literature becomes a very worthwhile and edifying life event. Therefore, my comments are not intended to suggest that I have completely abandoned religion. I have retreated to the confines of my own perspective and simply have come to the conclusion that denominational / partisan / provincial religion is little more than a "tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury and signifying nothing." Religion is without nourishment for me unless it is willing to cohabitate with renaissance and enlightenment principles. I simply don't have anything to say to those who are so cocksure that they are correct in all things religious and who insist that they "hear the voice of God" and "know the mind of God."
Posted by: CAPT Norm Holcomb, CHC, USN (Ret) | January 8, 2010 3:29 PM
CAPT Holcomb,
Would you consider sharing something about the personal experience that (along with the Bible passages you mention) is a central part of your present belief system?
Posted by: JuliaL | January 8, 2010 3:39 PM
JuliaL:
My "reference point" experience is totally personal. It is intellectually and psychologically indefensible and has no validity for anyone other than myself. It would not be proper to speak of it in a public forum.
Posted by: CAPT Norm Holcomb, CHC, USN (Ret) | January 8, 2010 3:49 PM
CAPT Holcomb,
My thought was that speaking of it in a public forum might encourage or confirm others who have very personal experiences that are meaningful to them. But I certainly respect your privacy, and appreciate your answer.
Julia
Posted by: JuliaL | January 8, 2010 3:53 PM
Julia L:
I meant preferring old to young vs. young to old. Apologies if that wasn't clear.
But even if one's perception of beauty is culturally rather than genetically determined, its probably not possible to change it. That makes the local definition of beauty a fact of life, just as if it were hard coded into our brains by our DNA.
Ultimately I'm uncomfortable with the "ageist" label because it seems like a judgement of people for something they can't control. The "ist" label carries powerful negative affect and should be used sparingly.
Posted by: James K | January 8, 2010 8:39 PM
Personally, I haven't found that the judgments of the culture I live in are so much more powerful than my own choices that it is as if my family and friends and neighbors' values and aesthetic choices are "hard coded into" my brain. Like many others, I've found that by paying attention to things/people/characteristics that I've been told are icky or ugly or not worth noticing that I've often been able to come to see their own special beauty. (Exposure to, and study of, art, music, and literature, as well as thoughtful, open-minded travel are of course considered to be standard ways of stretching one's mind beyond local perspectives. Changing cultures if only for a while might help.)
But I'll take your word for it that there are people who are entirely at the mercy of what the culture around them says is ugly or beautiful. It seems to me that in that case the way to avoid ageism might be to acknowledge (to others as well as to one's self) that one's preferences are indeed a result of a geographical, temporal, educational, social confluence that has no more basis in fact than any other such confluence, but that one is unable to resist. I think the honest thing, then, would be not to say that older people are in any absolute sense ugly merely because of the markers of age, but that one is so far personally unable to appreciate their beauty.
Of course, there's much, much more to racism, sexism, and ageism than just stereotyped judgments about beauty/ugliness.
Posted by: JuliaL | January 8, 2010 10:03 PM
Julia @ # 120:
Thank you for your thoughtful response. I did not think there were any anecdotes about "the old days," vis-à-vis the women's movement, that I hadn't heard, but your experience with "hiding" a pregnancy is one. At least you apparently had somewhat understanding management!
Some laws have indeed changed, but some very important matters are possibly more imperiled now than they were then, esp. abortion & contraception availability. Any society that doesn't understand the importance of these to women's emancipation really doesn't get it...38 years ago I was having a pre-Roe-v.-Wade abortion...
When I applied to grad school, I asked my advisor if I should check masters or Ph.D. on the form...He told me, "Ph.D. If you choose masters', they'll just think you didn't find a husband as an undergrad." Lot's of people I've told this to think it was sexist, but again, that is just shooting the messenger.
At that time there were already a fair number of women grad students in biology. I understand that one of the things that's changed considerably is that it's no longer considered all that OK for male profs to hit on their students. (Which is not to say that we hitees were blameless, of course...)
Alas, when it comes to ageism, I think that James K is right*--we are up against evolutionary factors that are not amenable to politico-social movements. I don't think many straight men are able to appreciate how much more this affects women; but the one nice thing about ageism is that sooner or later everyone will experience it, if they live long enough, so there is at least schadenfreude to look forward to. Sigh. I did say I was cynical, right?
Meanwhile, countering the legal progress you point to has been, IMO, an ever more pervasive media saturation of some of the most female-damaging stereotypes possible. I'd much rather have raised my daughter in the era of my youth, than in the last two decades...
I have tried to be less bleak with her, of course; but at the same time I haven't misled her with truisms that aren't so true, such as the old "it doesn't matter what you look like, it's what's inside that counts."
Anyway, to get out of my wallow and more or less back to your points; I agree that there has been progress on some fronts, but I fear that there is an upper limit to how much we can expect and that we have nearly reached it. It was most bracing, though to have so many of the recent science Nobelists be female.
____________________
*...though I disagree that there isn't a valid use for the term itself. As he will one day know.
Posted by: Diane G. | January 8, 2010 10:26 PM
When I was in the AF, someone in my squadron decided to have a sex-change operation (male to female). A higher-up tried to get the trans guy's shop chief to drum him out of the military. The SC told the higher-up to shove it; the trans guy was his best worker, male or female, so it didn't matter if he was a dude or a chick, as long he stuck around.
Someone else eventually did the paperwork, and out the soon-to-be female went. Don't worry. We got revenge after the surgery was done: We invited the new "her" to the squadron Christmas party,
Of course, that was back in the days when the USAF wasn't a fundie brainwashing club.
Posted by: Aquaria | January 11, 2010 3:14 AM