Naming Ourselves: Who Will Decide Who YOU Are?

[Ima Rang]

---

Ishtara Rothschild wrote:

Don't take any of his rants serious. This is just his newest attempt at shutting up people who make him feel funny because he feels threatend by (or perhaps attracted to in some cases, as

this study

suggests) their sexual orientation, gender identity, or neuro-atypicality.

It's the equivalent of a scared little boy hiding under a blanket to avoid seeing anything threatening. And at the same time, it's an attempt to deny us our identity by forbidding us to publicly define and identify ourselves, which is right on topic imho.

 

PS: I just saw that he has shown his true ugly face in his last comment. Now that everyone has seen him for the pathetic hateful creature that he is, can we please just ignore him? Thanks.

---

His last post really pisses me off, but yes, you are right, he will have to dine on his own defecation.  I don't mind feeding the amusing trolls, but I will not feed the virtual hate crime trolls. 

 

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Ishtara Rothschild wrote:

I meant both the ability of each individual of a highly social species to cooperate as a member of a group and the willingness of the group to support individuals even if they can't pull their own weight. Both has been strongly selected for in human beings, which means that it constitutes fitness (at least as long as there are enough resources to go around. If resources become scarce, competitiveness and territoriality increase, but humans will still cooperate with and be supportive of their closest in kin).

The common misunderstanding of Spencer's phrase is that all species and even individuals are supposed to compete with each other. Another misunderstanding is that

only

the fittest survive, and not all those who are barely "fit" enough.

---

I understand those selections, but they were made long before we had such a heavy grip on the planet (in so many ways). My Father noted that we're the first species capable of taking a conscious hand in our own evolution. He placed no value on that. He thought that a job best left for future anthropologists.

I find it very difficult to look at the behaviour of any particular individual (especially online) and draw any conclusion whatsoever about their viability or even the viability of their social group. We have such a blinkered view here that I've no idea what we can say about viability.

I am fascinated by the larger pictures, as teased out by people like Hans Rosling. If the world geographically segregated into two political ideologies over the course of 40,000 years, might we see Hans' bubbles tracing new species evolving out of those man-made distinctions?

That conscious societal pressures affect reproduction might be called "unnatural selection" (surely there's a "real" name for this by now?). It is taking place. I simply don't understand what variables are at work. And if we get the immortality you think might lie ahead, will it come with a vastly different rate of evolution? Or no evolution at all?

[Void Singer]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

[...] That conscious societal pressures affect reproduction might be called "unnatural selection" (surely there's a "real" name for this by now?).[...]

---

 I believe it's known as "social bias", and actually still qualifies as natural selection... because selection is for environment, regardless on how the environment arose.

[Storm Clarence]

---

Ishtara Rothschild wrote:

Don't take any of his rants serious. This is just his newest attempt at shutting up people who make him feel funny because he feels threatened by (or perhaps attracted to in some cases, as

this study

suggests) their sexual orientation, gender identity, or neuro-typicality.

---

I clicked on the link you provided.  I was curious (not to be confused with 'gay' curious as I have my own issues to deal with let alone....well never mind) as to the title and results.  Low and behold I was impressed.  I was impresses not so much with the study and results, but with the advertisement directly below the title.  It read:

Just in time for Valentine's Day: Pheromones, romantic illusions, and staying green while demonstrating your feelings for your sweetheart  »

Pheromones, hmmm, where on this forum have I recently read about pheromones?  Needless to say I was impressed.

PS I am glad you were not referring to 'me' when you posted the link above.  Perhaps for different reasons but homophobes scare heteros, too.

[Venus Petrov]

---

Storm Clarence wrote:

---

Pheromones, hmmm, where on this forum have I recently read about pheromones?  Needless to say I was impressed.

---

 

Shush....she is probably lurking and trying to figure out what name she will pick.

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Void Singer wrote:

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

[...] That conscious societal pressures affect reproduction might be called "unnatural selection" (surely there's a "real" name for this by now?).[...]

---

 I believe it's known as "social bias", and actually still qualifies as natural selection... because selection is for environment, regardless on how the environment arose.

---

So the difference is that in 40,000 years the rabbits won't be blaming each other for their predicament.

[Void Singer]

only if they turn out smarter than humans...

...shouldn't be hard =X

[Ishtara Rothschild]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

I find it very difficult to look at the behaviour of any particular individual (especially online) and draw any conclusion whatsoever about their viability or even the viability of their social group. We have such a blinkered view here that I've no idea what we can say about viability.

---

I agree, and I would never presume to do that. I'm not mother nature Only hindsight can tell what was viable and what turned out to be not.

 

Viability strongly depends on the environment btw, which includes the socio-cultural environment. The latter is even more important for the selection and evolution of humans than our natural environment, which we have become very adept at modifying for our requirements.

For example, in 19th century Europe, a schizophrenic would have been locked away in a mental asylum as a very effective means of eugenics, although his captors would have rationalized their actions differently. But in a neolithic hunter-gatherer society, the same person might have been a powerful shaman with lots of reproductive opportunities, second only to the leader of his or her clan. Research of shamanism in extant hunter-gatherer societies has found that many shamans are indeed schizotypal, if not full-blown schizophrenic. It's debatable if our way of treating what we have come to think of as mental diseases is any better than the more socially inclusive and sometimes even reverent treatment of neurodiverse or neuro-atypical individuals in other cultures.

Another example are sociopaths, who would probably have been right at home on a medieval battlefield. Although, actually.... coming to think of it, this is a bad example, because sociopaths are still extremely successful in the Western World. They thrive in corporate environments where a complete lack of empathy and conscience, ruthless competitiveness, and the ability to manipulate people can be very valuable traits. Some psychologists argue that sociopaths have always been more willing to assume leadership positions than others, and were also more likely to be voted or promoted into these positions -- or simply to lie, cheat, scheme and manipulate their way to the top.

It is therefore very important which kind of traits we choose to reward in our societies. If we value competitiveness more than cooperation... but I digress  It is indeed hard to tell which traits are viable and promote social as well as reproductive success, both of which tends to go hand in hand in human societies. 

 

---

I am fascinated by the larger pictures, as teased out by people like Hans Rosling. If the world geographically segregated into two political ideologies over the course of 40,000 years, might we see Hans' bubbles tracing new species evolving out of those man-made distinctions?

---

I'm not familiar with Hans Rosling's work, but I have no doubt that this scenario would indeed result in speciation at some point. Anthropologists often speak of gene-culture co-evolution, which basically means that different socio-cultural environments allow different types of people to be socially successful and sexually desirable. These successful people will in turn shape and change their socio-cultural environment to benefit their own needs, which renders the social environment less ideal for the needs of others. 

It's basically a feedback loop. Humans shape their environment, which in turn shapes the people that live in it. In one society, a person is a powerful shaman who hears the voices of ancestral spirits and gods. In a different society, the same person ends up restrained to a bed in a mental hospital. One society abhors violence, whereas another culture revels in it. One culture seeks to eliminate diversity, while other cultures tolerate and celebrate it. (Right now, it appears that the latter are more successful, because great diversity leads to great ideas. If people are forced into boxes, there is nobody who thinks outside the box).

 

---

That conscious societal pressures affect reproduction might be called "unnatural selection" (surely there's a "real" name for this by now?). It is taking place. I simply don't understand what variables are at work. And if we get the immortality you think might lie ahead, will it come with a vastly different rate of evolution? Or no evolution at all?

---

You've basically described gene-culture co-evolution in your first sentence, as well as sexual selection. Void is correct that both is still natural selection. Being a part of nature, we can't really do anything unnatural imho Although there are aspects to modern life that change the historical course of human evolution, such as modern medicine. Many individuals who would have been infertile or unable to reach adulthood in historic times can nowadays have offspring. We can only hope that medical progress can keep up with the resulting changes to our gene pool.

But once we have reached the era of posthumanism (which some say has already begun), we probably no longer need to worry about these matters. I assume that the rate of evolution will increase in the same way as our technological and scientific progress in recent centuries. At some point, we might truly be able to shape ourselves and our destiny. We might even create entire new species, some of which could be digital consciousnesses that live in virtual realities. I mean, what is life if not information? Why bother traveling to distant planets if we have the computing capacity to create entire new worlds? Why procreate if we can create something better than ourselves? 

[Void Singer]

re: posthumanism

dpeneding the meaning assigned evolution can take giant leaps forward in rate, continue on just as before, or come to a dead stop, all depending on your perspective....

for the first case, modifying yourself on the fly means near unlimited potential, for the third case such an ability obviates the generational definition of evolution, since all would have the same abilities, and in the median case you could look at it from the perspective of of desirable supersets of traits.

taking it a step farther you'd be looking at a tree split, since some traits are mutually exclusive. Even assuming swapping back and forth you'd still end up with the only relevent categorization left being specialization at the moment.

@feedback loops:
violence vs pacifism, conformance vs diversity, etc... seems to me that those are loops of their own that all boil down to chaos vs order.... which in the end tend to stabilize against each other.... chaos in it's flexibility will always find a way around order that's too rigid, and order will always spring from chaos by it's nature.

ETA:
remove stupid auto smilies that I can't turn off

[Dillon Levenque]

I don't really understand how I didn't see this thread earlier. It is certainly the sort of topic I'd respond to. I have what you might call a vested interest in the subject (sometimes there is disvesting involved as well, but that's another story). I see it's garnered a lot of comment in less than twelve hours.

I won't argue with anyone who calls himself or herself transgendered, needless to say. I think I am familiar with the blogger of whom you speak, and believe me I am not a fan. But if he wants to be he, fine by me. I will say right out that I have difficulty understanding FTM (female to male) transgenders. I've talked with only a handful and it's hard for me to get my head around the concept. I don't worry too much about that. I know it's difficult for a great many people to get their heads around transgenderedness, period. Both males and females find it hard to understand. Hell, I have trouble figuring it out myself sometimes. But it does exist. By the way, did you see that Australia now allows passports with no gender marked (or a third gender, as they call it) so a male who doesn't look like a male (or vice versa) can get through customs without causing a stir?

In the end, we do decide who we are. Second Life gave me an opportunity to express a part of me that in RL had only had a few brief glimpses of the light of day. I don't really care how others think of me here; it's how I think of myself that matters. Yes, I'm glad when I am accepted as I see myself. I'd be me even without that acceptance.

Start more threads.

 

[kattatonia Wickentower]

Oh hey, Scylla posted and it's still here for me to read.  Way cool. Quick - copy the thread to a word doc and save it before it's gone.

I've often thought about the side effects of naming or labeling.  For instance, in naming yourself as a feminist, you take on a whole lot of baggage that can be avoided by not naming yourself as such.  I remember in the early 70's when the feminist movement really took off and I embraced it wholeheartedly.  Bra burning, CR groups, Ms. Magazine, Our Bodies Ourselves, male chauvinism, The international year of the woman conference - Good times.  But eventually, to be labeled a feminist to me became reductionist. I'm so much more than that.  And really, how many times do I want to have those arguments?  I find that I can hold my radical viewpoints much more easily when I don't carry a sign over my head. 

My sexuality is a private matter, even more so than my political beliefs.  And I think it is totally up to each individual to decide what is best for them.

I named myself here, there and a few other places on the internet.  I know who I am.  My decision to share who I am with others is rather ambivalent.  My name gives a clue to who I am but it is not the summation of my essence.  It's really just a little joke at my own expense.  One of the things about me, that I am willing to share freely is that I suffer from clinical depression, and that I manage my condition with prescription medications.  Untreated, my condition at it's most extreme could be described as catatonic; and my RL name starts with a K.

The bottom line for me when it comes to naming is a matter of manners.  The polite thing to do is to respect the choices of others.  Tell me who you are and I will accept you.

[Josephina Bonetto]

I just saw the comments.  This is a general reply to the OP but I refer to people specifically within it, they know who they are.

I replied to the person quoting me in context with Dogboat so my reply was very much justified. But by all means call me Miss Thang if you like.  You showed yourself up by your comments, not me, which is why you are lumped in the same category as Dogboat - I hope you will be very happy together.

I am 35 not 16 and thank you to, I believe it was Melita but forgive me if I am wrong as I only skim read, who explained precisely why I can't metabolise medication. And got it accurate.

As far as self labelling and being emo Dogboat is clearly projecting his own issues on to me and I apologise for giving anything he said any kind of credence last night.  Saying you have a diagnosis is not self labelling or being self pitying and as other people have already said, by stating that is the case, I am not saying it defines me too.  I am also female - I am labelling myself by stating this by your very definition Dogboat LOL.

I won't be visiting the forums again, I see they have not improved much.  It was a rare and infrequent visit which I now wish I had reconsidered O_O  Some things life is too short for, and dealing with forum trolls is one of them.

[Venus Petrov]

---

Josephina Bonetto wrote:

I won't be visiting the forums again

, I see they have not improved much.  It was a rare and infrequent visit which I now wish I had reconsidered O_O  Some things life is too short for, and dealing with forum trolls is one of them.

---

What you do is your choice.  All I can say is that I appreciate the intelligence in your communications and wish that you would reconsider.  SLF is richer when there are diverse voices contributing to the conversation.  There are bullies everywhere.  Hell, I recently received a long PM from one.  Do not let them chase you from the playground.

ETA:  Ceka is not a bully.

[Ceka Cianci]

---

Josephina Bonetto wrote:

I just saw the comments.  This is a general reply to the OP but I refer to people specifically within it, they know who they are.

I replied to the person quoting me in context with Dogboat so my reply was very much justified. But by all means call me Miss Thang if you like.  You showed yourself up by your comments, not me, which is why you are lumped in the same category as Dogboat - I hope you will be very happy together.

I am 35 not 16 and thank you to, I believe it was Melita but forgive me if I am wrong as I only skim read, who explained precisely why I can't metabolise medication. And got it accurate.

As far as self labelling and being emo Dogboat is clearly projecting his own issues on to me and I apologise for giving anything he said any kind of credence last night.  Saying you have a diagnosis is not self labelling or being self pitying and as other people have already said, by stating that is the case, I am not saying it defines me too.  I am also female - I am labelling myself by stating this by your very definition Dogboat LOL.

I won't be visiting the forums again, I see they have not improved much.  It was a rare and infrequent visit which I now wish I had reconsidered O_O  Some things life is too short for, and dealing with forum trolls is one of them.

---

if you found i was  saying something to you then sorry but that was all your imagination..i reply to dogboat in a certain way in the forums..if any of it was ment to be twards you your quote would have been included above his..

for the last time...it had nothing to do with you.. your name was nowhere  in my response

you are not the only person in sl that has an imbalance..or in this thread for that matter..

let me say it to where it is clear for you..

IT WAS ABOUT ME NOT YOU!

i don't make fun of other people with conditons...i do make fun of myself and any that i may have ..A LOT..hence the F5 comment... so stop making everything in this thread about you..i never even read your comments.. i never even saw you before you decided to get all drama queen on me...

get like that with me and ya you will be called a miss thang..i don't care how old you are or what gender you are..

i'm not trolling you..you got that all backwards miss victim..

go find someone else for your evil villan slot..you are not sucking me into that role..now get off my back for the last time..

 

 

 

 

 

[Madelaine McMasters]

Ceka, I took your comment in much the way Josephina did. Let me explain how I came to that potential misunderstanding...

It started with this comment from Josephina: (I'll show all quoted text in non-bold italics)

I am "out" as Bipolar 2 Rapid Cycling as my avatar but it's on a need-to-know basis in RL.  If I was outed in RL my world wouldn't end.  While I want to tell people in RL there is never really a right time for that conversation, and I have no real patience for other peoples prejudices.

Which was followed by this response from Dogboat:

what the heck is bipolar rapid 2 cycling,, sometging to do with the olympics also?

or just some wierd label you bestowed on yourself to make you seem so different when you are so the same as everyone else?

So Josephina got more or less the kind of prejudicial response she's received so often before.

You then replied to Dogboat with:

you mean being moody is a disease now?

i'm probably  an F5 bipolar then as moody and bitchy as i can get..sometimes you just can't get out of my way.

i always thought it had something to do with balance..oh well ..just shows how much i read up on diseases of the mind hehehehe

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I read your comments as agreeing with Dogboat's. You equated a formal diagnosis with "being moody". You then diagnosed yourself as F5 bipolar. Both of these comments appear to make light of what I will take at face value as a formal medical diagnosis. You then go on to make light of your own ignorance on the subject. We've every right to do that, but as an excuse for prejudice it falls flat.

Josephina's then responsed to you:



Comments like that are why I am not "out" in RL.

People are very ignorant, rude and think they are the first person to ever say it to people like me.

As Josephina's response was to you, not Dogboat, it seems she perceived you as being in agreement with him, just as I did. Josephina has heard these kinds of disparaging remarks before, so it's not surprising that her response is short, sharp and perhaps prejudical. Prejudice (perceived or real) often breeds more prejudice.

And finally, you responded...

don't assume what i am saying just because you may have heard something similar before..

you are in the real world right now..

i asked a question to someone else...feel like jumping in without thinking it's all about you  then have at it any time..

i was referring to me not you miss thang

Now again, I may be misreading you, but it seems you are saying that equating your moodiness to another person's diagnosed medical condition is all about you and not them. Josephina apparently doesn't see it that way and neither do I. And to top it all off, in a thread about naming, you wrapped up with a bit of name calling ;-)

I love irony and satire as much at the next person, but I sometimes (often?) blow it and have to back up and start over. I also understand the errors in tone that arise from jumping into a thread without having read the entire thing, particularly in response to someone you know. It happens.

So here's our chance to correct the misunderstandings. I hope Josephina will return to participate.

(My apologies for the horrific formatting of this post. The Lithum software demands more intelligence/knowledge than I'm willing or able to muster at the moment.)

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Ishtara Rothschild wrote:

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

I find it very difficult to look at the behaviour of any particular individual (especially online) and draw any conclusion whatsoever about their viability or even the viability of their social group. We have such a blinkered view here that I've no idea what we can say about viability.

---

I agree, and I would never presume to do that. I'm not mother nature

Only hindsight can tell what was viable and what turned out to be not.

---

Well, I don't believe you did so seriously, but you did hint that a particular individual might be a member of a certain group that will go extinct soon enough!

I share the frustration that drives such commentary but eventually bite my tongue because I seem to run into more of them every day. I skipped over the chance to reproduce, so my particular genes aren't going anywhere, but I also can't quite banish the thought that folks who share my disposition are also headed for extinction.

;-)

 

[Melita Magic]

I hope that you will not allow compulsive shamers with a streak of sadism to chase you from the forums, Josephine. They fail at empathy, and call it our failing when they do.

I can, however, understand saving one's energy for other (perhaps better) things.

And ps: you are welcome. (Maddy posted the more scientific page, which I learned some things from also.)

[Ceka Cianci]

anything of what i said was not directed at her..as i said i had not even read anything she had said until after replying to dogboat..when she decided to make my post all about her..

i don't troll people and i never have trolled people..especially people with conditions..

i will however make fun of myself or make light of myself and will beat around the bush about myself as i always have..i will go after a troll before i ever support one..

i was being more sarcastic than anything to him..i can't count how many times i have acted dumb to dogboat in other threads when he starts messing around..

you all are jumping right in like he wants you to and playing his game ..

if you look at what i said you will find there is truth in it if you look hard enough..

you all or putting more effort into what i said than i did..

"you mean being moody is a disease now?  (maybe this would have been more clear if i added DOH!! at the end of it?as in..i've been homer'd this whole time?\o/)

 i'm probably  an F5 bipolar then as moody and bitchy as i can get..sometimes you just can't get out of my way..(thats what it feels like as an example..not really an F5..it's my way of saying they can get real bad some days..my mood swings feel like a freaking F5 tornado has hold of me as fast as they change some days when things get unbalanced and start kicking the crap out of me..kind of like..wow that bee stung me like someone hit me in the head with a baseball bat?

i live in the south..i use a lot of examples on a daily basis in the forums...

since day one in these forums and the foums before them i have made light giggles about my mood swings that change like the wind rather than throwing myself out there for all to see..and ya sometimes people just can't get out of the way..i don't  bring those to the forums...i log off.. )

i always thought it had something to do with balance..oh well ..just shows how much i read up on diseases of the mind hehehehe"( i have read up on it and spend a lot of my time making sure i stick to it.. balance is part of controling it from comming on)

as far as my responses to her..i wasn't talking to her..instead of jumping on me like i am some everyday troll which i have never been..she should have came at me in a different way..i can be a moody bitch at times when i feel someone is putting me someplace i don't belong..

she came at me very hard..so i came back harder..i can't help it she  may not understand how i speak to dogboat at times..if someone wants to get all up on me without  first confirming things..then they will get what they have coming..i don't care who they are or what they are..

how many people here speak as if everyone new to the forums can understand everything they are saying?? how many here have certain ways they post to certain other members of the forums??is it so that everyone around here can understand them? no it's not..otherwise everyone would be laughing or getting pissed at everyones inside jokes..

there are people in these forums that have been here since RA that have a lot of inside communication that i still don't understand..i don't go jumping down their posts everytime i misunderstand them..

i will ask if they are being sarcastic or if they may have aimed that at me..

i'm not a troll..i have been helping people in the forums since RA.. i'm not looking for any pats on the back..but i won't have someone getting pats on the back at my expense either..

maybe next time instead of getting all drama FIRST she should ask someone what they ment..

sorry if this may sound snippy but it's not at you..i'm just not gonna have someone get on me and ride me for what it's worth..i will throw them off faster than a brumby with a bur in the saddle..

thats a horse incase some may want to know..

 

ETA anyone go back on my post history and please show me where i am trolling people in the forums..you will find a lot of playing and humor and helping people and silly videos and trying to answer questions..

a lot of people jumped all over wasted when he was hitting the threads..i remember flirting with him in a silly manner making light of himand acting like i was his girlfriend  for the longest time..it's because i don't take trolls serious..it's what they want you to do..

[RudolphUkka]

I don't like

*

boring

*

longwinded

*

posters who state the

*

obvious and I refuse to

*

agree with their pretentious

*

nonsense whatever

*

gender, religion, race, disability or handedness they may

*

claim in a

*

futile

*

manner because they have no

*

way of

*

proving it to me.

***

 

[Carole Franizzi]

 

Whereas,

<>

I love

<>

threads in which

<>

hate-mongers declare they hate

<>

hate-mongers,

<>

trolls scream that they’re not

<>

trolling,

<>

the prejudiced look down their noses

<>

at those with prejudices different from their own,

<>

the unofficially unstable berate

<>

those who had the guts to see a doctor,

<>

and where

<>

scorn is poured on those

<>

who are seen to evoke

<>

pity

<>

by those who try to evoke

<>

pity

<>

as defence for their attack,

<>

and, as long as contain your words in a reply to someone else,

<>

you can name-call, insult and offend

<>

all you like.

<>

But most of all,

<>

I love

<>

haiku-posting.

 

 

Yay! (That’s fun!)

[Madelaine McMasters]

Ceka, thanks for taking the time to explain. I expected that there was some history involved, but Jesephina would have no way of knowing that. While she did jump to the conclusion you were making light of her, rather than Dogboat, I had the same feeling. But I've also known you long enough to suspect I'd misinterpreted. So I asked.

As I was recently reminded, our posting styles are not known to all. For as hard as I try to be understood, I don't always hit the mark.

And a final thought: You say when people come at you, you come back harder. I've tried that over the years, never successfully. If a troll comes at me, s/he's looking for engagement. The only thing I can do is deny it. If I misjudge a comment as an attack and return fire, I've simply exacerbated a misunderstanding. It happens, but I try to avoid it.

 

Thanks again,

Maddy

[Void Singer]

---

Carole Franizzi wrote:

[...] Yay! (That’s fun!)

---

 

sure... once, maybe twice.

[Carole Franizzi]

You're doing it wrong. It's supposed to go downwards.

 

Sure...

Once,

Maybe twice.

 

See?

[Dagmar Heideman]

---

Ishtara Rothschild wrote:

 

People who are happy being a "shemale" and wouldn't want it any other way -- which actually constitute the majority of trans women in societies that are accepting of a third gender, such as the Thai culture --

---

Please do not paint non-op MtF transgendered people with one broad brushstroke.  While it is true that there are lots of MtF non-ops, those that categorically "wouldn't want it any other way" are not the majority.  Most have medical or economic concerns/issues that prevent them/influence their decisions regarding undergoing vaginoplasty.  If it was simple as waving a magic wand to get a set of fully functional sexual genetilia and reproductive system that conform to their gender identity most non-ops wouldn't hesitate to use that magic wand.

---

Ishtara Rothschild wrote:

....any form of transsexuality other than this self-mutilation by proxy (no offense to those who desire this option)....

---

It's a bit difficult to not take offense at that kind of characterization for SRS.  It's kind of like saying "...any form of expression as an African American other than by being a house n****r..."  It also reinforces the undesirable stereotype that post-op transexxuals are all sick people engaging in self-mutliation used by bigoted reactionary evangelical hatemongers.  I understand that you are about as far as can be from that category of people but some thought in choosing your words would have been appreciated.  :smileysad:

---

Ishtara Rothschild wrote:

....societies that are accepting of a third gender, such as the Thai culture -- are still a taboo in the Western World..........In Germany, it is impossible to get a female name and passport unless one is willing to be.....

---

Thai culture may be tolerant of transgendered MtF people but it is hardly accepting.  Don't confuse a culture of tolerance and a healthcare system that is extremely accomodating to MtF SRS (Iran is accomodating to MtF SRS as well) as one that is accepting of transgendered people.  In Thailand you may be tolerated but you're still largely considered a freak by much of the society, and you have zero legal recognition of your gender identity.  Even after SRS you're still regarded as a ladyboy and cannot get legal recognition as a woman.

As to Scylla's OP, it takes so little effort to acknowledge and respect the identity that most SL residents present for themselves that it's hard to fathom why some people go out of their way to do so. I generally interpret the actions of such people as the product of a pathology that's forged out of some combination of pettiness and intolerance.

 

[Void Singer]

see, it's gotten tired already...