On O'Reilly Factor, Miller ridiculed transgender man, child he gave birth to
On The O'Reilly Factor, Dennis Miller ridiculed Thomas Beatie, a transgender man who recently gave birth to a child, calling him a "nympho satyr" and saying: "[A]ll I know is the guy's more pregnant than the old woman in the shoe is. And somebody has got to get some protection for this guy, be it a condom or an IUD or a satellite dish or a catcher's mitt. I don't even know what he needs down there, but I need an equipment check on aisle five." Referring to the baby, Miller had video of the polar bear cub at the Berlin zoo aired.
On the December 17 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, radio host Dennis Miller said of transgender man Thomas Beatie, "I don't know what to make of this nympho satyr." He continued: "[A]ll I know is the guy's more pregnant than the old woman in the shoe is. And somebody has got to get some protection for this guy, be it a condom or an IUD or a satellite dish or a catcher's mitt. I don't even know what he needs down there, but I need an equipment check on aisle five." O'Reilly responded, "This is one of those things I don't even like to think about, you know."
In addition, Miller asked O'Reilly, "Billy, did you ever see a picture of his first kid?" Then, the program aired a clip of Knut, a polar bear living at the Zoologischer Garten Berlin, and said: "I asked them to get some footage of his first child. It's Knut, the little bear. I don't know how that happened, but how does a guy get pregnant?" O'Reilly responded, "What, did you do a DNA test on him, Miller? Did you do a DNA test on Knut? Are you positive it's the pregnant man's first child?" Miller answered: "Yes, I did. This kid owes Knut some mackerel on a monthly basis. He is the father."
As Media Matters for America noted, on the April 3 edition of The O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly said of Beatie, "You imagine a poor kid getting born into that family going, 'Hey... whoa. Who are you today?' " Fox News contributor Bernard Goldberg responded: "That's the real tragedy."
From the December 17 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: All right. Number eight, the pregnant man. Roll the tape.
MILLER: I don't even --
BEATIE [video clip]: I did not feel maternal or motherly or womanly pregnant. I felt like Nancy's husband and I felt like the father of my child. I passed by the mirror one day, and out of the corner of my eye, I saw a pregnant man. And I was like, "Oh, my God, I'm pregnant."
O'REILLY: I just -- the visual puts him on the list, does it not?
MILLER: Well, if it puts him on, it puts me on, too. Listen, I don't know what to make of this nympho satyr. The -- all I know is the guy's more pregnant than the old woman in the shoe is. And somebody has got to get some protection for this guy, be it a condom or an IUD or a satellite dish or a catcher's mitt. I don't even know what he needs down there, but I need an equipment check on aisle five.
O'REILLY: Yeah, this is one of those things I don't even like to think about, you know.
MILLER: Billy, did you ever see a picture of his first kid?
MILLER: Unbelievable. Look who it is.
MILLER: Well, they'll show you in a second. I asked them to get some footage of his first child. It's Knut, the little bear. I don't know how that happened, but how does a guy get pregnant?
O'REILLY: What, did you do a DNA test on him, Miller? Did you do a DNA test on Knut? Are you positive it's the pregnant man's first child?
MILLER: Yes, I did. This kid owes Knut some mackerel on a monthly basis. He is the father.
Media Matters: The right-wing media's election analysis just ain't that good
The Friday Rush: For conservatives, $400 million buys defeat at the ballot box
The myth of Fox News' ratings spike
"I don't know how that happened, but how does a guy get pregnant?"
Having a uterus and a vagina is a good way to start.
To a guy who thinks "falafel" is something you cite during phone sex, that's gonna go WAY over O'Reilly's melon.
...oh that was Miller's question. Let me try again: To a who hasn't gotten laid since working at SNL, that's gonna go WAY over Miller's melon.
That doesn't make "her" a guy. Sex is determined by dna and dna alone. Basic biology. She is still a woman. That's the mis-information MMFA should be interested in, not the O'Reilly-Miller banter. Shame on MMFA.
Does Thomas Beatie not consider himself to be a transgender man?
I could "consider" myself anything, it doesn't make it necessarily so. The transgender your speaking of is superficial. This "man" was born w/ a womb, uterus, ovaries, necessary hormones to support a baby and was fertilized w/ a male zygote.
Good to see you accept and use the term "transgender". It's a start.
Except anatomy does not determine sexuality.
Meant gender identity NOT sexuality.
Isn't that what i said?
I don't know, did you?
I think so. I said dna determines gender, not superficial genitals. Turner's Syndrome is an example of confused gender identity.
Don't worry, sigtek, liberals often get confused when FACTS are used instead of emotions. They even think someone who dyes their brown hair blond are natural blonds. It's just their way of pushing un-natural beings into our lives as somehow being natural. They figure if the doctor cuts here and there and 'makes you that way', then that doctor must be God and you now have all the God given rights of people born that way. Being born one way and choosing to be a different way have no difference in the eyes of so many liberals.
If I don't know about something, I keep my trap shut. Basic biology is clearly as far as you went. You clearly know nothing of gender or genetics. Thomas Beatie is a transman. He has a male gender identity and this is hormonally determined in the womb.
While were at it, not everyone has an XX or XY sex chromosome set-up in any case. Try XXY, XYY and other variations. There's a simple spanner in your simple works.
What a tapdance. The scientific community would be all over this(and you) if the story persists that this is a male human being. I'm not disparaging "him", just showing the fact that MMFA missed the real misinformation here and I do understand genetics---the extended definition you stated isn't pertinent here. Case in point, would this "man" be able to "father" a child? And don't give me the non-sense of infertility or asexuality. Transman?
BigLiz,
Do you have any link to a non-transgendered agenda driven website proving your assertion that "male gender identity" is hormonally determined in the womb?
Thanks
Androgen (the male hormone) production and reception are genetic issues. If there's a problem with either, it might look like a duck and quack like a duck, but its really a Cocker Spaniel.
Consider the following unsupported. I can't remember the title or author and I can't find my notes on it. Some may find it interesting.
At 4-6 weeks into developement a single gene on the Y chromozome activates Its function is to activate other genes which starts the development of male characteristics. Mutations can delay or change this sequence and its end result.
In the case here and other female to male transexuals there is less study and the conversion still a work in progress in the medical field. The genetic trail to womanhood less clear. I'd speculate that the sex hormone mix in this case is subject to mutations as well and problems with production and/or reception of sexual hormones.
If you'd prefer to think that this person's reasons are merely to jerk your and similar minded person's chains, well that seems rather egostisical of you.
But is your data from a non-transgendered agenda driven website? It's so hard to find any other sort of website, the internets are so dominated by them.
Yah, his standards are way up (out?) there. If he's really into it I did reference a title and author on this somewhere in the last year here. I'm sure its findable.
%~)
I'm trying hard to remember when Miller was actually funny..... maybe when he was on SNL?
The impression I get is that 9/11 scared him so bad that he felt compelled to defend President Numbnuts from any and all criticism so he could keep us safe from turrists.
Or maybe he's always been a troglodyte... I don't know.
Miller has never been funny. In fact, I hold him personally responsible for the demise of Weekend Update.
That aside, we all need to take a closer look at this article. Because this is EXACTLY the type of story that O'Really and Miller should be doing. It's the Entertainment Tonite meringue topping stuff that Billdo was weened on. And whether faking outrage about a pregnant transsexual, expressing shock at "Bigfoot Stole My Wife!", or giving a critique about the dress that Angelina Jolie wore to the Oscars, it's Billdo's natural millieu. If he, Miller, and his audience weren't so worried about being relevant, they could forget all the intellectual stuff and be much more comfortable viewing pictures of the "Bat Baby" and supplying their own laugh track for their audience by displaying "barely suppressed" giggles at Miller's inappropriate metaphors.
I say "more stuff like this, Billdo. It's what you do best, and all that your audience can understand."
One more thing, as long as we're in the season of best-of-the-year awards. This comes from Jeff Cohen and Norman Solomon on Counterpunch today:
BEYOND PARODY PRIZE -- Fox News In August, a FoxNews.com teaser for the “O’Reilly Factor” program said: “Obama bombarded by personal attacks. Are they legit? Ann Coulter comments.”
Neon, those are the teasers on Fox that make it all worthwhile.I'm sometimes awed that BilldO and friends can even read those things off the prompter without breaking up.
BTW, how's the winter wonderland in Sin City looking?
We'd like to thank you for sending us your bestest L.A. winter drivers. And then keeping them here by closing I-15.
That was a dirty trick...
We just had a couple of days of rain, our first in a long time, and our most bestest drivers know how dangerous those oily wet roads are,and drive extra-fast in order to get off of them sooner.
Our poor weather guesstimators are batting 0's last two days. The snow was supposed to be stopping at 10 A.M. 1" max. It's still coming down and is about 4" deep on my porch.
That low dumping on you was up here last week.
It is a bit weird, its usually either cold and dry or wet and warm up here this time of year. A white Christmas is a rarity.
Several years ago I was in LA during El Nino. On one rainy day, the freeway system had 350 accidents. No wonder insurance is so high out there.
Huh, Fog? That's only like one out of 700 million cars. That's pretty good.
Here in Cleveland we don't have 350 freeway accidents in a year!
Slackers. And a lot of ours are on purpose,so they're not even counted as "accidents". Let's step it up there, Cleveland.
No, in Cleveland you have just as many accidents, but your cars are so rusty, you can't find the dent you put in it and no insurance claims are made.
Miller has never been funny. In fact, I hold him personally responsible for the demise of Weekend Update.
I always found his pathetic mean-spirited humor to be so repulsive I had to change the channel. Dennis Miller makes BillO look like a lamb. That is his job here.
What do you expect from Miller? He thinks he's funny...but he's not. Otherwise he might still have a career as a comdeian.
Fortunately, he is funny enough to get free advertisement from mmfa. Do you get free advertisement from mmfa? I guess you have no career either. IMHO, the problem you liberals have with Dennis Miller is that he speaks the truth as he sees it from his heart. You people speak the truth as you are told to by whoever is controlling you. Liberals absolutely HATE independent thinkers and certainly don't allow it to pass un-bashed in any conversation.
Miller is able to say that Bush had the balls to stand up to evil in the world and you people continue to support the rights of those evil-doers. Clinton just had an anniversary go past where he bombed the hell out of Iraq because Saddam wouldn't comply with UN demands, yet you people say no violations ever happened in Iraq. Where are your balls? In the hands of Thomas Beatie?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Iraq_(December_1998)
I've heard Miller proudly describe himself as a "9/11 Conservative". It fits in with that saying about a conservative being a liberal who's been mugged, meaning that one is prone to making important decisions when at their most frightened and irrational.
I guess Mika Brzezinski will be changing stripes then.
Mika Mugged
MILLER: Billy, did you ever see a picture of his first kid?
I love the way he calls O'Reilly Billy!...and how O'Reilly calls him Miller! Like two jocks in a buddy flick...except much older. I can imagine them snapping towels at each other in the locker room...not that that's a pleasant picture. ;>)
They're such good pals. Probably on the same bowling team. Probably got together to tile O'Really's family room one weekend. Probably discuss their latest telephone conquests...
BTW, your distasteful lock-room image isn't much more unpleasant than seeing them on tv discussing.... anything.
The stupid thing about this whole brouhaha is that half these guys (con's) don't really acknowldege that one's gender actually changes in these cases. To most of them, a women doesn't become a man (and vice versa) they merely become a woman or man (however they started out life) with mutilated genitals and superfluopus pastic surguries. This seems to me to be the first time they actually recognize the changed gender. (IOW - we'll recognize it if it suits our predjudices and agenda.)
Personally I'll never understand the decision to change gender (thus, I won't go forming opinions about things I don't understad!) but when this story (about the supposed "male pregnancy") broke, I viewed it with an feeling of utter indifference. Why this would bother anyone, I'll never know.
Is it unusual? Sure: So is the Phillies being World Champions. Is it unnatural? Sure: about as unnatural as having indoor plumbing.
What is it with these small-minded people who can't fathom that there are people in the world who don't think, feel and choose to live exactly as they do?
Some of the people who have issues with this are small-minded. The commentary noted here (particularly about the bear) is inane. But it's not just about "think, feel, live" as anyone else does. If it was just about a sex change operation, that's not an issue. That's the sort of thing you wouldn't have to tell your child until they were older and able to understand. If it was about lesbians raising children, that's no problem either. There's nobody in my immediate or extended family who falls into either of those categories, but I don't have any concerns with them.
But people should pick one or the other, for the sake of the children. I don't think that's unreasonable to say. If you want to be a man, be the father, not the mother.
It's important to distinguish between orientation and actions which could be considered harmful. Some people have made the argument that gay people shouldn't adopt because of people's reactions, which is circular. If you accept it, then there's no problem. And it should be accepted, because it's a natural sexual orientation and people shouldn't discriminate based on it. This, however, is an action, which has the potential of creating a very confused child. There is no motivation for people to accept that.
I agree with you. In my opinion it is not conservative fear or paranoia to question what this guy is doing.
I think I'd rather have this couple as my parents than the ones who named their son Adolf Hitler recently.
Loving parents can do a lot regardless of what sexual identity they might believe they are. Sure the child will take some insults growing up, few children escape that from their peers. The child can grow up to be very educated about what a sexual identity means and respond intelligently to others sexual identity. Or become the opposite. The outcome will have much to do with the humanity expressed by the parents, but what kind of person they become is very much their own choice.
I've often said that when people are going to criticize you no matter what, you should give them the less viable criticism to work with. The same principle works for children and insults. If a child's going to be picked on, then make it about their ears or shoes or something. You don't name your kid "Dorkus" because you figure "well, he'll just get insulted anyway". Minimize it.
The nature of the parents has a lot to do with it, but there are many formative events that happen outside of their direct supervision.
"but what kind of person they become is very much their own choice."
Which is what I (and many other conservatives) say from the start. It is strictly CHOICE.
As for your complaint about naming children. It shows how phobic you are. Are you saying that in every society, to name a child Adolf Hitler will be considered deformative? Or is it only in your anti-choice society that you would not allow that? Do you support government choosing all names of children born in this country? Or is that still a freedom allowed to ALL? Some people don't like the name Harlen, yet people are given it. Some consider it a stupid insulting name that invokes inbreeding. Are you complaining about that one?
You really don't see the difference between naming someone "Harlen" and naming a child "Adolf Hitler"? You don't see a problem with people manifesting their nazi beliefs into their children in such a blatant manner? Incredible.
Yes I see the difference, but obviously you have NO clue to my point. What if they named their child that 100 years ago? Would you be whining about it? NO! It's because they named the child after someone who has a terrible history. People name their child after Jesus all the time. Would you whine like a baby if someone named their child Satan? WHY NOT???
Of course it's because they named it after someone with a terrible history. That's the problem. I would think "Satan" would be highly inappropriate as well.
So what is your point?
I hear you, but I harldy think that this woman woke up one day and said "I think I want to be a man and then bear a child as one." More likely she got the sex change, and they didn't bother with the hysterectomy. I don'r know if that's standard procedure or not, but it probably was done that way becuase it was in the best interest of the patient at that point in time.
Then, years later, and married, his wife could not bear childeren. So they realize, wait a sec... you still have the parts... and we still want childeren. Is there any reason why we shouldn't do this?
I fail to see anything in your post that would give them a valid reason at that point.
The headlinbe at the time "Man gets pregnant" was misleading and potentially inflamatory, given the knee-jerk tendencies of our louder, more conservative pundits. Now... If a man, who was born a man, got pregnant - THAT would be news. THIS? This is just one potentially infertile that took advantage of the surgical circumstances. There is nothiung here to be amazed and inspired by or for that matter to be shocked and appalled by. (I had a trangendered friend, F2M, online who was really inspired by this story. I couldn't understand his reaction any more than I can the negative ones by conservatives; and some others, to be fair.)
I mean: "HUMAN BEING WITH UTERUS GETS PREGNANT." Wow. That must be a REALLY slow news day, huh?
That's a good point, I don't remember the situation being described that way in the stories I'd seen. That's the distinction I'm drawing, a matter of need as opposed to a matter of choice. If they really had no other reasonable option, that makes it more understandable.
I still think it should be avoided if possible, for the sake of child development. It also seems that we all make decisions in life that affect future situations, so we have to be careful with those big ones. If you choose to become a man, then you preclude yourself on some level from giving birth. If they think they can overcome that awkward situation and raise a well-adjusted child, then all the best to them.
Again though... Your entire argument relies on accepting that the judgement being passed on the child, by others, is somehow justified. I understand that [prejudice, for lack of a better term] EXSISTS, and that the parents could be PRAGMATIC about it, but it seems like you want to justify the negative feelings and actions of others by saying that others will have negative feelings and actions.
It's WRONG to judge (and bully / harrass / pick on / etc...) the child in this case. I think everyone in the world (save for O'Reilly and Miller) can agree on this. So we must acknowledge this, and we must teach our own childeren to do better, and expect better from ourselves. After all: WHAT DID THE CHILD DO "WRONG"? Nothing, right? So these "negative actions" that are used to justify "negative feelings" towards the parents (for creating a child that would be harrassed) are utterly unjustified themselves and EVERYONE must work to stop these.
If you accept that they must be stopped, then what's left to criticies the parents with? Are they supposed to put off their dreams just because the world refuses to grow up, even as it acknowledges that it has too? I can't think that they should. And if the harrassment of the child is dealt with (or stopped, as it should be) the why critisise the parents?
This is the same reasoning used to justify denying gays the right to adopt. Now, I'm adpoted myself, and I'll admit that I'd give strait couples preferential treatment over gays when it comes to adoptions, I would NOT however deny them the right to adopt. And the reasons for my feelings on the matter have nothing to do with how the child will be treated (which is a silly reason to argue anyway, since the negative treatment is unjustified) or that they couldn't raise a "normal," "healthy," and "well-adjusted" child, because it's been shown time and time again that they can. My reason is that the gay couple knew they would be infertile when they formed, and the strait couple did not. The gays made an infomred decision and the strait couple liekly didn't know. But that's just not the case here. In this case, you have a transgendered couple that was infertile and rather than adopt, which would have been met with just as much blow-back for the Right, they took advantage of what they had.
You say that the decision to become a man should preclude you from bearing childeren. Let me ask you: WHY? If hysterectomy is NOT traditionally part of the sex change procedure (and I don't know if it is or isn't, I'm not a Dr.) then what's the big deal? So s/he's the first. So what? If 10 years form now there are hundereds, wht would that be a bad thing? To anyone who would say that it's bad because of how the child will be treated by society, I'll say:
SHAME ON YOU. GROW UP, GET OVER YOUR HANG-UPS AND TREAT THE CHILD THEY WAY THEY DESERVE TO BE TREATED, BASED ON THEIR OWN CHARACTER AND BEHAVIOR. To do otherwise is completely unjustified and it is YOU, not the child's parents, who are doing wrong.
"Again though... Your entire argument relies on accepting that the judgement being passed on the child, by others, is somehow justified. I understand that [prejudice, for lack of a better term] EXSISTS, and that the parents could be PRAGMATIC about it, but it seems like you want to justify the negative feelings and actions of others by saying that others will have negative feelings and actions."
Why does it seem that I want to justify any negative feelings or actions? I don't see your basis for that. If you understand that prejudice exists, then you see the reality of the situation, just as I do.
"It's WRONG to judge (and bully / harrass / pick on / etc...) the child in this case. I think everyone in the world (save for O'Reilly and Miller) can agree on this. So we must acknowledge this, and we must teach our own childeren to do better, and expect better from ourselves. After all: WHAT DID THE CHILD DO "WRONG"? Nothing, right? So these "negative actions" that are used to justify "negative feelings" towards the parents (for creating a child that would be harrassed) are utterly unjustified themselves and EVERYONE must work to stop these."
Of course, but that's not the reality of the situation. Theoretically, everyone should accept everyone. Since that's not the case, whatever efforts can be made to avoid as much bullying as possible should be made.
"This is the same reasoning used to justify denying gays the right to adopt. Now, I'm adpoted myself, and I'll admit that I'd give strait couples preferential treatment over gays when it comes to adoptions, I would NOT however deny them the right to adopt. And the reasons for my feelings on the matter have nothing to do with how the child will be treated (which is a silly reason to argue anyway, since the negative treatment is unjustified) or that they couldn't raise a "normal," "healthy," and "well-adjusted" child, because it's been shown time and time again that they can. My reason is that the gay couple knew they would be infertile when they formed, and the strait couple did not. The gays made an infomred decision and the strait couple liekly didn't know. But that's just not the case here. In this case, you have a transgendered couple that was infertile and rather than adopt, which would have been met with just as much blow-back for the Right, they took advantage of what they had."
It's not the same reasoning at all. Gay people don't have any other options. It's not the same to say "you shouldn't have gotten a sex change" as "you shouldn't have chosen to be gay". I certainly understand that people are born in the wrong body and they don't feel right until they fix it, and I don't have a problem with that. But that doesn't mean that person is in the same position to raise children as someone else. Their issues may not put them in a position to raise children as easily as a gay couple. There's a difference between gender identity issues and sexual orientation. The fact that gay couples have been shown to raise well-adjusted children does not carry over to this rather unusual situation. I also have to challenge the assertion that adoption would have been met with "just as much blowback". Why is that? If that happened, then there's no need for the idea of the "man" being the mother, which is the whole problem.
"You say that the decision to become a man should preclude you from bearing childeren. Let me ask you: WHY? If hysterectomy is NOT traditionally part of the sex change procedure (and I don't know if it is or isn't, I'm not a Dr.) then what's the big deal? So s/he's the first. So what? If 10 years form now there are hundereds, wht would that be a bad thing? To anyone who would say that it's bad because of how the child will be treated by society, I'll say:SHAME ON YOU. GROW UP, GET OVER YOUR HANG-UPS AND TREAT THE CHILD THEY WAY THEY DESERVE TO BE TREATED, BASED ON THEIR OWN CHARACTER AND BEHAVIOR. To do otherwise is completely unjustified and it is YOU, not the child's parents, who are doing wrong."
I said "on some level". It's not absolute. As much as we ignore gender roles and differences for the purposes of equal rights, they are very important in family dynamics. Children should understand the differences between "he" and "she", this is not a line that should be blurred in such a manner.
You also have to remember it's not just a matter of being picked on simply because they're different. If a child is raised with two gay parents, that's common enough that it's not a trumping concern. It's somewhat understood, and will be understood more and more as time goes on. Going to school and saying "my daddy gave birth to me" is an entirely different matter. Even kids who would say "oh, OK" to a child having two daddies or mommies would say that child is crazy. Saying "well the daddy seahorse has the babies and so did my dad" doesn't help a whole hell of a lot.
If there were to be no difference for upbringing, and if it were to become part of the mainstream, then it wouldn't be a problem.
On any points where I misrepresented your reasoning, I concede.
But when you say thigns like "Children should understand the differences between "he" and "she", this is not a line that should be blurred in such a manner." The obvious question (to me) is, "Why?" I'm sure you'll have opinions, but there will be no shortage of opposing oppinions. In absense of any concrete evidence, I'm not going to be conviced just because "a lot of people have that opinion." Opinions do not become facts just because they are widely shared, or deeply believed.
You mention gay parents. 20 years ago it was unthinkable. Now you say it's common enough that the kids won't get picked on. (I'm not sure I'm ready to believe that, but whatever.) So what stopping thsi situation form being more common (or as common) 20 years from now?
And if that's the case, then simply saying that somethign shouldn't be done, merely becasue it never been done before... Well that's the death of any progress at all, my friend. Thinking that this will affect the development of the child in and of itself is just silly. There no evidence to support that, and how could there be? It's an unprecedented event. Any harm that comes to the child will come from the outsaide. And that will be far from universal. It will comes only from conservatives, and like minded people who get hund up on things, with no really good reason why they should. There will also be no shortage of people who think it's either a good thing or (like me) view it with indifference.
It's more than mere opinion. I didn't use that word, for the very reason that it's not about that. It's a matter of psychological development. That's a factor regardless of how many people believe anything.
I'm not saying children of gay parents won't get picked on. What I'm saying is that since homosexuality is natural, and therefore no basis for discrimination, any concerns about the treatment of children fail to trump the principle that's being fought for. Also, since this is the case, it will become more accepted, and it's more understandable for everyone to understand than something which even children know is physiologically impossible. Think about the two situations. You have a child who's being picked on because they have gay parents. The child goes to a teacher, who can easily understand what's going on and stand up for that child. On the other hand, you have a child who's being picked on because they say their dad gave birth to them. They go to a teacher, who says (in the nicest tone possible) "what are you talking about? Daddies don't give birth". It's just not the same thing. Even if that the teacher is familiar with the child's situation, what are they supposed to do? Explain to the child that their father is really a woman? For one situation it's fairly simple, for the other it's quite awkward.
Progress relies on an understanding of what should be accepted and why it should be accepted. It's not based on a principle of "anything goes". If there are concerns about the effects of the progress, then why is it desirable?
It's reasonable to think that this will affect development because a child's understanding of their world and the events that happen to them affect their personality. To suggest that there's no way of voicing this concern because these particular circumstances have never been seen is just plain bizarre.
If these two wanted to adopt, no problem. If they wanted to have a surrogate give birth, fine. If they wanted to have one child and then tell the child that the woman gave birth, terrific. If right-wingers want to complain about that, that's a much weaker criticism, and they use it at their own risk. But saying that this sort of confusion could have a harmful effect on a child is not small-minded or bigoted in any way.
Sorry for the lack of proofreading, was hurried there for a minute.
The polar bear reference was actually kinda funny.
... or I should say, about as funny as anything L&L could come up with.
I live in Scotland in the UK. We look upon the US not so much as the land of the free, but as the land of the free-for-all. We cherish free speech as much as you do, but we frown upon folk who take such liberties as Fox have here. In fact, had they tried that here, they would likely be censured by Ofcom, the broadcasting regulator, and possibly even had a visit from the police as it could be easily construed as a "transphobic incident".
It is fortunate that I have met a good many intelligent, articulate and open-minded citizens of the United States or it would be easy to form the opinion that the country is backward and uncivilised. Fox reflects no great credit on your nation, nor do the many transphobic opinions that I see expounded on a daily basis throughout your media.
Just because you met a couple Americans who seemed intelligent, don't you dare try to accuse us of not being backward and uncivilized. We got lots and lots of neat stuff, but that doesn't translate into social understanding, tolerance, or intelligence. We have a rich history of full of bigots and discrimination. And hey, we re-elected Bush in '04...
Yah, thats one of the things about our media that really makes me shudder on occasion. The images that they project about the US&A are not what I'm comfortable at all with. Veiwers are turning them off over here in growing numbers. There are some small bright spots in the media, maybe two, MSNBC's Obermann and Maddow. Some few radio hosts. If the majority were to disappear somehow few here would miss them. Except for the exceptional unintentionally humorous outbursts of course.
BigLiz,
You say you cherish free speech and in the same sentence say it would have been censured. Not to worry. I see the same sort of logic posted here all the time.
I hope all is well in your Country. God bless the Queen. We love the UK.
There are limits to free speech. The UK has set the bar where I imagine most citizens are comfortable.
OB, Liz said they cherish free speech however in the same breaath said the police over there might arrest one for what in the U.S. is routinely considered "free speech".
Even though "they" might be comfortable with it, does that sound civilized to you?
It sounds like "politically correct" fascism if you ask me.
Civilized? Yes, quite. And again, you don't get a say cause you don't live there.
She did not say arrested - she said a visit from the police and OFCOMM may censure them. And for someone such as yourself to decry the lack of civil discourse as you have on these boards to turn on someone from a country trying to ensure some semblance of civility is pretty rich.
OB,
I never said I did get a "say" over there anymore than Big Liz gets a say over here. That is a first class straw man argument as my say over there is completely irrelevant to our present discussion.
You are correct that Big Liz did not say arrested, but for what other reason would the police come to vist? Intimidation? Tea? Big Liz is ambiguous, but the implication is that the people would be arrested.
I'm sorry your last sentence makes no sense to me. Liz offered her opinion of America's free speech rights and I offered mine regarding hers. Please explain where there is a lack of civil discourse?
Yes, cause evertime someone interacts with the police someone is arrested.
My last sentence is in reference to you calling for civil discourse regarding important issues. You have mentioned that on these boards as I recall.
So in a country where they attempt to ensure a more civil discourse through things like hate speech legislation, you decry those measures.
And I think you may be confusing censored with censured.
Oh and for the "straw man" - I stated the country had decided that such legislation is acceptable (set the bar) and you came back with...
Even though "they" might be comfortable with it, does that sound civilized to you?
"They" are the only ones that matter in this case, you know the citizens of that country? So your contention that it is somehow uncivilized, in context with what the Brits have decided, I don't think straw man applies, but I stand to be corrected.
I recall the last time I yelled "Fire!" in a crowded theater, I told the judge that I was just exercising my right to free speech. I still got time in the pokey.
You should have yelled "chocolate". :-)
Actually I don't have much of a problem with Miller and O'Rielly saying these things, as appalling as I find them. Free speech should be protected, even in this case. I would not support our government fining them, arresting them, or sensoring them. (What happens to someone who is censured, BTW? What the actual consequence of that?)
What bothers me is that we ARE ignorant enough, as a nation, that this kind of nonsense doesn't get punnished by the MARKET, as it should. When someone is routinely offensive, people should stop watching, organize a boycott of the sponsors and through their own free-speech (and the free-market) get the dumb-a$s fired. Unfortunately there are enough like-mind biggots around that they not only escape market-based punnishment, but THRIVE by spewing this kind of filth. THAT depresses me.
But whatever. "Hate speech" is the easiest way to identify the ignorant. Saves me time, not having to listen to their whole show before reaching that conclusion.
This is why these rightwingers should be banned from the airwaves forever. They don't respect anyone who doesn't agree with them or fit their tidy little definitions of what's right and wrong.
Snoop, again your lack of insight amazes me. :-)
Oh, please expand on that.
I think Barney may be trying one of his misguided "pot meet kettle" deals, where he compares your opinion that these goofballs should be off the air with their publicly ridiculing people who are already spurned by most of society. But I'm just guessing.
Maybe he saw a chance to lash out at someone else. It must be tough for him to always be the victim here.
When people speak in absolutes, as you have done here, it destroys any credibility, unless your'e gonna cherrypick the "rightwingers" your'e referring to---re-read your post and tell me it doesn't smack of limiting other's rights to make your viewpoint more affordable.
I don't get it. Making fun of people just doesn't seem to come off funny to me. I find it sad. Making fun of people because of race, color, gender, sexual orientation is just ignorant. Showing a photo of the polar bear as the kid? How is this funny? For all the rocket scientists out there that seem to think they understand what transgender means, they should actually do their homework before making asses of themselves with "waht I know." I don't recall anyone arguing that Thomas was born biologically female, but rather that he identified as male -- which is different than just waking up and saying Ï want to be male today."It's bioneurological: Look it up.
Media Matters' title is misleading. There is no reason why this person should be called "transgender man" as opposed to "transgender woman". She is a woman who became a pseudo-man. She will always be a woman.
So, scratching the surface is good enough for you? That's what cave-people did.