I don't suppose we could convince Ms Freeze to use gender neutral ze and hir 

Z

having been forced to go to a single sex school (guys only) which didnt become co-ed till my last 2 years there... I would say the experience was a painful nightmare & although I do have a few good memories I just want to forget everything that happened there ...

I cannot understand why someone would want to put themselves through that willingly unless there are some other ulterior motives or they are finding it difficult to let go of their former self... 

Quote from: rite_of_inversion on November 22, 2010, 06:56:55 PM
I hadn't checked the particular e-mail account in 10 days that I used...Ms Freeze is still spouting claptrap at me.

I'm afraid this may be one of those meetings between two people who have a deep-seated, immature, primal desire to get the last word in.    I dunno if I'm going to keep posting her continued B.S. here...
But for your reading displeasure...And it'll be either angering or triggery, so don't read it if you aren't prepared...

Ms Freeze wrote:

You admit there is no gender-neutral pronoun. In its absence, what do you propose we use to refer to people of unknown or undetermined gender? If people choose to mutilate their genitals, ingest chemicals (hormones) that are designed to alter the body's chemistry, dress in the manner of the opposite sex, etc., how should they be referred to? If a man transitioned to a woman, "he" isn't appropriate, but "she" isn't accurate either. ( )Therefore, to succinctly and accurately describe the situation the person CHOSE to put themselves into, a gender neutral pronoun must be used. Currently, "it" is the only gender neutral pronoun accepted in the English lexicon. It may irritate a psychologist or sociologist, but it is the only pronoun we have. Again, if you actually read my column, you'd understand that dehumanization was not a part of my argument. After all, it's really hard to exercise personal responsibility if you aren't a person....


Best,
Jamie Freeze


On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 9:34 PM, Jamie Freeze <j.l.freeze@juno.com> wrote:

Mr. ______

The pronoun that seems to be slouching towards official use is third person singular "they."  It's ugly, true, but English does not seem to respond well to attempts to create words.
 

That constitutes another bigoted statement.

You may have a law degree, and great pride, but I see no love in your heart for anyone who does not fit your narrow definition of what constitutes acceptable behavior, or any patience for things you have no understanding of, and that disturb you.

You arrogate the act of judgement to yourself-which is something your Bible tells you to leave to God: "Judge not, lest Ye be Judged, " I believe I remember correctly?
This is something I and my wife find terrifying about the current Christian Warrior set...quite frankly, I think extermination of the different is easily something the movement is capable of.
And as one who, though not inclined to tell others what to do, isn't inclined to line-towing...well, the future is looking a bit dim for yours truly. 

What camp or prison will you have me put in, Miss Freeze, when you hold the reins of power? Or can I successfully escape the tidy new America you propose? We'll see, I guess.

"IT" is going to be a lawyer one day. Obviously "IT" doesn't have the ability to look at other facts. Only the one that supports IT'S bigotry.

She is really hard headed in a bad way. Maybe you should send her some quotes from her bible. Leviticus would be good. That is where she gets her anti-gay thoughts from.

"Leviticus, Chapter 20:9
For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall surely be put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.

Leviticus, Chapter 20:10
And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbor's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

Leviticus, Chapter 24:16
And he that blasphemeth the name of Jehovah, he shall surely be put to death; all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the sojourner, as the home-born, when he blasphemeth the name [of Jehovah], shall be put to death."

Jamie Freeze is toying with us all here to satisfy her own egocentric idiocy. She really is not interested in learning about the trans experience nor does she care who her writing offends. She is simply enthralled at the idea that she has created such attention to be brought upon herself at our expense.

If you're interested, here is a compilation of emails sent between her and I that I've compiled in a google document. To date she has not replied to the last email and I really do not expect she will.

Dawn

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N-F9uEdKFB49DYCcaXWH_RXR3uHfDg8sfsgxlhlloEg/edit?authkey=CP3p7qQL&hl=en#

that B****! since she is not bothered by people calling her that I don't think I am going to be bothered calling her that either...

Honestly, how self-centered, egoistic and bigoted can one get? the greatest example of someone who had a similar mindset was someone we largely blame for starting World War 2 and sending millions to their deaths in cold blood... (we all know who that is .. ) and by encouraging people to refer to transgendered/transsexuals as it she is only making things worse!

Quote from: Vibes6 on November 23, 2010, 12:12:12 PM
that B****! since she is not bothered by people calling her that I don't think I am going to be bothered calling her that either...

Honestly, how self-centered, egoistic and bigoted can one get? the greatest example of someone who had a similar mindset was someone we largely blame for starting World War 2 and sending millions to their deaths in cold blood... (we all know who that is .. ) and by encouraging people to refer to transgendered/transsexuals as it she is only making things worse!

Yup!! I truly don't think she understands (or cares) how dangerous this type of mindset really is.


Dawn

Quote from: Dawn D. on November 23, 2010, 12:38:07 PM
Yup!! I truly don't think she understands (or cares) how dangerous this type of mindset really is.


Dawn

She doesn't care.

I sent her this a minute ago-then immediately blocked her! I HAZ LAST WORD!!!BWAHAHAHA!
(yes...definitely not being mature this evening...)


Message:

I support your right to your inflammatory rhetoric, yes.  Have I denied that? I don't think so.

I support the right of the KKK to march, too.  But I find it very worrisome for both myself and my nonwhite, non-straight neighbors that our entire neighborhood was leafletted with recruitment flyers for a chapter of said organization last week.
(I do have to say-for people who advocate for English-only, they shouldn't mangle it so badly.)

We are worried for ourselves, as well as our nonwhite neighbors, and are generally keeping the guns handy...because while, yes, you can say anything and not mean violence by it, other people can, and will take your rhetoric as a justification for violence.
(The KKK may take lots of things as a justification for violence, meth will do that to you.)

Personal responsibility...yes, a person is responsible for what they do. And what they say, and post.

I, for one, would never use inflammatory rhetoric that dehumanized another person, not online, not anywhere, not even anonymously, because of the thought that I might inspire someone to act out in violence.  Not that I'm a total pacifist-obviously not.

It's because other people may take what I say more seriously than I do, because they aren't as peaceably-minded.  This sort of thing happens all the time.  I'm a very guilt-ridden person, and if I shoot someone even in the most justifiable circumstances, it's going to haunt me.  That won't stop me, but it makes me look for alternatives to violence.

As I was a very serious Christian at one point...I don't believe myself to be taking that Bible quote out of context at all.   It implied that Jahweh takes to Himself the right to judge all humans, and that therefore followers of Jesus were not to punish sinners, but instead to be living examples as best they can of God's love, and to allow God to do what it was that God wished to do to that person. As the saying goes, "Let go, let God?"

I draw analogies to when Gautama (Buddha) was officiating a huge argument over a point between some of his followers and another group: He told his students, "Just tell them they are wrong, and let it go."

And that is now what I am about to do to you. You are determined to not understand that what you send out to the world in terms of speech can and will have unforseen consequences.  You will not accept that your vitriol can cause indirect harm to others.
You can wreak harm and you may already have done so.

And you refuse to hear it, therefore I'm wasting my time on you, young lady.
------
(BTW, we really did have a KKK flyer in everybody's driveway, and we really are keeping the guns loaded...)

I feel the student in this story lacked foresight in joining the school (which is forgivable), but I also feel that the school could have let her/him continue to attend on a technicality. At worst his credits and tuition should have had the option of a full transfer.

Here is how the argument would go down:

"There is a man in our all-girl school!"

"He used to (or still does) have a vagina and ovaries."

"Oh."

I started a petition to hopefully urge her or RenewAmerica to change it. Please help

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/request-jamie-freeze-to-remove-offensive-dehumanizing-headline-in-her-story-titled-hesheit/

http://transgenderhate.blogspot.com/2010/12/call-for-action-jamie-freeze-and.html

Replying to the discussion of transgender men in women's spaces, I tend to feel the same way that kyril does. I don't understand why a guy would want to be in a gender-segregated space, even if I understand exactly how it happens. Not everyone knows that he or she or ze is trans from the age of 3.

I think it's important to think about why the women's space is being provided in the first place, though, because not all gender-segregated situations are identical. Sometimes it is about creating 'sisterhood.' Sometimes it is about providing opportunities that did not exist due to prior discrimination. Sometimes it is about providing opportunities due to existing discrimination. In the sports context, it is often about limitations of biological sex and not gender.

As a result, the search for a blanket rule makes no sense, independent of context. When women's colleges existed to counter-balance men's college or because women were discriminated in for admission, it might have been different than now.

Today, it seems pretty clear that there is a particular purpose and environment being promised by historical women's colleges and whether you agree with this mission or not, it really should not include transmen. Now, if they want to exclude transwomen, I'd have a problem with that.

On the flip side, I worry that FTMs who wish to stay in women's spaces or claim entitlement if they have not "medically" transitioned actually harm the FTM community by suggesting that we are not 'real' men or do not become men until X about of time on HRT or surgery.

Thanks for starting the petition Dana. I signed it. It will likely fall on already deaf ears. However, the more noise the better!


Dawn

Quote from: Dawn D. on December 30, 2010, 05:37:54 PM
Thanks for starting the petition Dana. I signed it. It will likely fall on already deaf ears. However, the more noise the better!


Dawn

Thanks for signing!

Jamie Freeze tweets about my petition.

http://transgenderhate.blogspot.com/2011/01/jamie-freeze-tweets.html?spref=tw

If you haven't signed it yet, please do!

I signed it.  Thank you for doing this.  This sort of person infuriates me!!!

I think I know who the Aaron person is that posted that offensive comment in my blog. Not going to identify the person in public but I am pretty confident who it is.