I understand that it is hard for a lot of people to grasp that [Michael] Bailey and [Ray] Blanchard are pro-trans rights, but they are both clinical pragmatists who believe medical interventions should be aimed at leaving people better off. There is good evidence (some of it collected by Blanchard) that well-screened, well-treated transwomen are left better off psychologically after transition.
One more thing on this subject: An important part that is often missed about Blanchard’s and Bailey’s work on this subject deals with the fact that not all natal males with autogynephilia need transition to do well, just as not all femme androphiles need transition to do well. Some absolutely do. Some don’t. This is where good therapists who are respectful and don’t behave in knee-jerk, identity-categorizing ways are important. The therapist who thinks that every natal male aroused by cross-dressing is really a transwoman who must transition is as dangerous as the therapist who thinks arousal to cross-dressing is a sick perversion that must be stomped out.
In practice, our sexual orientation identities manifest from a complicated interaction of biology and culture.
She alleged that Smith and other school officials improperly blocked her appointment to a teaching assistant post, rejected her application for a post-graduate instructorship, and denied her scholarship aid while she was a student.
The court opinion also noted that Dolezal claimed that the university’s decision to remove some of her artworks from a February 2001 student exhibition was "motivated by a discriminatory purpose to favor African-American students over" her.
I'm not going to post anything else on this subject. At this point I feel sorry for the woman. Can't help it. I guess I'm built that way. Or it's years of therapeutic encounters with people who have messed up in life.
What seems clear now is that she's got stuff going on. I hope she'll seek some help to sort it out. Maybe she's done a lot of good things, but she's also made a mess, and I don't want to be part of any public crucifixion going forward. If there are people she has hurt, they are certainly entitled to hold her accountable. And I'm not judging those who want to write more about this. I just don't want to say any more.
talk publicly about transgenderism, unless we agree with the thought police.
I admit to hesitation about posting this, but since the subject of transgenderism has been in the news a lot lately, and because I write from a mostly anonymous platform, I'm going to take a chance here and share some thoughts, possibly over the course a few posts. I'll decide that as I get into it, or if I find there is any reader interest in further discussion of the subject.
Two camps on prison conditions: one says prisoners should be treated humanely, the other says they deserve whatever they get. This article by a former inmate is sure to arouse both reactions. I believe the author describes inhumane treatment and that such treatment isn't right.
My parents didn't know about the prison camps and prisoners on farms. Like I said, probably no German prisoners housed in Brooklyn. But they said they were issued dog tags at school that they were required to wear.
Obviously, coastal cities were considered most at risk and NYC was among the juciest of targets. Anyway, never heard about the children's dog tags, that I can recall.
Last night, a woman leaning over a railing on Upper Wacker Drive (Chicago) fell to her death. A commenter on a newspaper account wrote "Darwin," presumably suggesting that an unfit being eliminated herself from the human gene pool. Aside from the tastelessness of that reaction to an accidental death, there is something I never hear in these references to Darwin.
Perhaps natural selection has favored some degree of risk-taking that no doubt varies from one person to the next. Colllectively, a certain amount of risk-taking would probably advantage one tribe over another tribe that was utterly risk-averse. And if risk-taking is selected, some will survive the risks they take and some will not. If that weren't the case, it wouldn't be risk-taking. A certain percentage of deaths would be the cost of a collective advantage conferred by a certain amount of collective risk-taking inclination.
Now surely there's an upper limit on collective risk-taking because too much risk-taking collectively would no doubt be disadvantageous in most times and places. That isn't to say that any given individual who died taking a risk was an unfit human being, because risk-related deaths balanced against survival of risk might sustain an optimal level of collective risk-taking. In no case or in only a few cases at the extremes of risk-taking inclination might it correctly be suggested that a specific death is a sign of individual unfitness. At that, you'd probably need to know a lot more about the person's history to make that suggestion. Anyway, the extreme case probably doesn't describe most of what we might even call "dumb" accidents.
I feel sure that others have already written something like this, but I haven't seen it for myself. And it annoys me a little when someone writes "Darwin Award," because of the tastlessness, but almost more because of the ignorant superiority it conveys.
On my own today, so running around town and just riffing in mobile mode to make my L ride more bearable. I'll be back later to see if what I wrote still makes sense to me, or any of you.