Discussing the “transgender dilemma”

[Natasha]

Discussing the "transgender dilemma"

http://evangelicalvillage.com/2009/06/13/discussing-the-transgender-dilemma/
6/13/09

I have been talking with a fellow conservative pastor recently about the "transgrender dilemma."  He has multiple degrees and also taught at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School for many years in the Sociology program.  Through many conversations with him on the transgender issue I realized I have been quite naive about the transgender issue and that most of evangelicalism is as well.  Many evangelicals even think transgender and homosexuality is the same issue, which shows some naiveness.  I am not saying there is no overlap, but it is foolish to put them in the exact same category.

[mickie88]

but it is foolish to put them in the exact same category


but that is exacyly what most people do!!! grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

[Tammy Hope]

but it is foolish to put them in the exact same category


but that is exacyly what most people do!!! grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

Am I the only one who thinks that we help reinforce that misconception when we allow ourselves to be enveloped under the "LGBT" umbrella on all the social activism causes?

Nothing against homosexuality, and especually nothing abainst "standing together" where we have common cause, but I sometimes wonder if the term LGBT is itself an enemy of accurate perceptions of trans people.

[finewine]

Am I the only one who thinks that we help reinforce that misconception when we allow ourselves to be enveloped under the "LGBT" umbrella on all the social activism causes?

Nothing against homosexuality, and especually nothing abainst "standing together" where we have common cause, but I sometimes wonder if the term LGBT is itself an enemy of accurate perceptions of trans people.

You're not the only one, I also feel that it's strategically a mistake to couple T with LGB for exactly the reasons cited above in this thread.  We can support and ally with the LGB community on rights, recognition and acceptance but we need to break the correlation between sexual orientation and being transgender.

I know, from being part of the unaware cisgendered (ostensibly) hetero world, that transgendered individuals are almost always mentally categorized as being a homosexual orientation.  This may well be caused by a lack of understanding about gender dysphoria combined with a solely genito-centric view of gender.   Appending T to LGB just reinforces the erroneous view that being transgendered equates to being queer.

You may be L, G or B and coincidentally T  but T *does not* equate to L, G or B

[Syne]

Teaches Sociology and has very little understanding of the LGBT community. Another reason why those with degrees from religious institutions should not be taken seriously.

[Tammy Hope]

I posted a comment on that blog - most of the respondents seem thoughtful. I particularly recommend the comment by "Zoe Brain" (is that one of our members?)

[Steph]

That GLBT thingy...  While I believe we should/can support each other as far as human rights and freedoms, we should not be included.  Those under the T umbrella who consider themselves as Gay, Lesbian or Bi are certainly free to associate, but there are many others who do not fit.

On the Blog entry... I'm not religious in any way, shape or form but it is refreshing to see sane logical debate/discussion on the TS issue and religion.

-={LR}=-

[mickie88]

transexuality and homosexuality confusion is exactly what i have to put up with every day at work....especially when it came to the loo. so far that has died down and no one has complained. i am glad for at least that much

[Vicky]

The poor, tired idea of "original sin" translates out in any theology, to "somebody's gotta take a hit for this, and it can't be God who is perfect".  It is entirely likely that we are as close to perfectness as the cissexual heterosexuals and just as normal humans as any made or pro-created anywhere.

I don't myself think that being lumped in with any other "sexual deviant" group either hurts or helps us since I have a personal suspicion that "God" as I understand the supreme architect is more than a little miffed that we haven't caught on to our own responsibility to make things comfortable for ALL of us to live together whether we can all pronounce IAM the same way.

OK the pulpit is clear.   

[Alyssa M.]

That is brilliant. I am glad to read the post. Thank you for sharing, Natasha.

I'm going to go against the grain here and argue that TBLG is a good grouping.

Of course, "GLB" and "T" are different, but no matter how you construe "T" (or like some, dismiss it entirely after transition), it problematizes the distinction between "straight" and "gay." Nearly everyone on this site (including SO's, basically everyone but family members) might be seen as gay by someone. Not reinforcing that misconception (or correct understanding, depending on the situation) isn't the priority; making sure that it doesn't matter is. The questions raised in the article -- namely about how transgender identities might be seen as an extension of the category of intersexual conditions -- quickly leads to the conclusion (if you think about it just a minute longer) that homosexuality is yet another natural variant. That's good for everyone.

Vicky, unless you are perfect, or have ever met a single human being who is, I would like to know what you find problematic with the notion that all human beings are imperfect, which is (actually) the gist of the doctrine of original sin -- "sin" isn't "utter depraved evil" -- rather, it's "lack of perfection." Your description (or anything equivalent) is not universally held, though certainly some people (like Mr. Svoboda) seem to hold it.

[finewine]

[...]
Of course, "GLB" and "T" are different, but no matter how you construe "T" (or like some, dismiss it entirely after transition), it problematizes the distinction between "straight" and "gay." Nearly everyone on this site (including SO's, basically everyone but family members) might be seen as gay by someone. Not reinforcing that misconception (or correct understanding, depending on the situation) isn't the priority; making sure that it doesn't matter is. The questions raised in the article -- namely about how transgender identities might be seen as an extension of the category of intersexual conditions -- quickly leads to the conclusion (if you think about it just a minute longer) that homosexuality is yet another natural variant. That's good for everyone.
[...]

A thoughtful argument, thank you.   I understand that tolerance of diversity is a good thing so that any such distinction doesn't, and shouldn't, matter.

I do feel, however, that the distinction is important because gender dysphoria is a clinically recognised, diagnosable medical condition that often requires psychological therapy, medical oversight and care, etc.. This is substantively different from sexual orientation.  Indeed, there have been some rather insidious suggestions that non-heterosexual orientation is a psychological disorder that can be "treated" via therapy.

We want therapy to be readily available to gender dysphoria sufferers but we absolutely do not want people trying to "cure" our sexual orientation, do we?  I really do think the coupling of transgender with LGB is strategically risky, as it blurs what I believe to be profoundly important distinctions and reinforces the erroneous homosexual stereotype of transgendered people, i.e. the view that transsexuals are just homosexuals who have a cross dressing fetish or that a trans-woman and a man is a "gay" same sex relationship (anatomically *and* psychologically).

Of course, this doesn't have to be in conflict with support for diversity but why is an explicit community coupling required, beyond being a symbolic representation of solidarity?  After all, what about promoting tolerance for ethnic or religious diversity?  Should we have AAT (anti-apartheid & transgendered) or TAAS (transgendered against anti-semitism)?

Obviously I'm being facetious here and I realize there is a closer relationship between LGB & T communities due to the existing stereotypical views, which is somewhat different from race & religious diversity issues.

I'm not advocating breaking the alliance or mutual campaigning.  I am, however, suggesting that the transgendered community needs to be careful about this correlation.  My perception, which may be flawed and limited by my visible world, is that there is very little explicit messaging to clarify that being transgendered DOES NOT equate to being homosexual.

One may be gay and/or one may be transsexual but they are not mutually inclusive!

[tekla]

Congratulations.  Comments that are both short-sighted, as well as narrow minded.  And the keen grasp of history the total ignorance as the history of these movements both apart and together.

Short-sighted, narrow minded, and ignorant are pretty much the origination trifecta of human problems.

I'm not going to go into why, and how these movements have both been long a part of the others space and culture.  Why that would be silly (during the month of June in particular, that's just a bonus) to think they got together just because they all were the same people, hanging out in the same places, with similar agendas.

But, I would like to say, that a separate agenda, away from and 100% divorced from the LG agenda would hurt both the gay and lesbian population as well as the Trans constituent (but for sure, mostly us).

Separate is bad.  Very bad.  Ask the Republicans what happens when you tell everyone that 'you with us, or against us' and then proceed to exclude everyone from being with you.  You lose.  Inclusion is good, ask the current Dems and the old Reagan Republicans about that whole inclusion deal - it just doesn't win elections, it sweeps them. 

Separatism is brought about by a few people, with a rather creepy interpersonal agenda, and I have rarely found it to be false.  Never in fact.

It's always pushed by people who share a willingness to trade being a small part in a large victory in order to be a leader of failure at a small level.

They do this because its all about martyrdom.  The point in most separatist movements always boils down to "I tried, but the people weren't ready (see, blame someone else) and failure gets elevated to a lofty position while simple ideas, like, say... winning and losing, get lost in the shuffle.

You see, as everyone who wins knows, The side with the most supporters in the end tends to win.  Just that simple.  Those that want to get out, just want to lose.

Because, that is what will happen.  Without access to the political system though the LGBT network that has been being set up for a long, long time now and not something to be casually done away with because you realized something personal about yourself in the last six months. This political network of the LTBG has been a force in doing some pretty interesting political changes, and taking on some pretty awesome, if formidable targets and making some powerful enemies along the way.

As shown time and a again there are not enough of us to make a difference all alone.  We need to be part of a wider movement if we want to have our issues heard at a wider level.


By the way, the LG movement is not about sex.  Yeesh.  It's about your right to be attracted to who you choose, your right to be able to express yourself in a manner of your own choosing and to not be afraid of doing that day in and day out right out there in public. 

[Shana A]

but it is foolish to put them in the exact same category

The so called "gay" movement at Stonewall was started by transgender people. I see no reason to separate trans, I'm more than happy to include LGB people in our struggle for equal rights. 

Z

[finewine]

Congratulations.  Comments that are both short-sighted, as well as narrow minded.
[...]

The missing attribution makes it hard to tell where that is aimed.  On reviewing the thread so far, the cross-hairs need some tuning either way.

But, I would like to say, that a separate agenda, away from and 100% divorced from the LG agenda would hurt both the gay and lesbian population as well as the Trans constituent (but for sure, mostly us).
[...]
Separatism is brought about by a few people, with a rather creepy interpersonal agenda, and I have rarely found it to be false.  Never in fact.
[...]
As shown time and a again there are not enough of us to make a difference all alone.  We need to be part of a wider movement if we want to have our issues heard at a wider level.

So who is suggesting such a complete split, exactly?  I for one have explicitly said just earlier that I'm opposed to breaking this alliance or breaking any mutual campaigning.  I've only been talking about the terminology and any potential strategic downsides of compounding a stereotypical view which, without any effort being expended to explicitly clarify the difference between LGB & T, does occur.

Of course, it's inevitable that people will interpret a discussion as binary, either-or positions.  We can add that to the short sighted and narrow minded attributes too, hmm?

[Tammy Hope]

Congratulations.  Comments that are both short-sighted, as well as narrow minded.  And the keen grasp of history the total ignorance as the history of these movements both apart and together.

Oh my. This may be more bluntness than I've seen on this whole board so far condensed into a single post (albeit I haven't been here long) - I'd like to respond but I definitely don't want to get into an argument so i'll try to be as simple and clear as i can.

It is absolutely true that i am not a "movement" expert, partly because I wasn't out or planning to be, and partly because I'm not a "movement" person by nature, which I'll touch on later.

On the other hand, what that does give me is the perspective that comes from having fraternized with the "enemy" a great deal and some insight into how they perceive things.

Short-sighted, narrow minded, and ignorant are pretty much the origination trifecta of human problems.

I'm not going to go into why, and how these movements have both been long a part of the others space and culture.  Why that would be silly (during the month of June in particular, that's just a bonus) to think they got together just because they all were the same people, hanging out in the same places, with similar agendas.

But, I would like to say, that a separate agenda, away from and 100% divorced from the LG agenda would hurt both the gay and lesbian population as well as the Trans constituent (but for sure, mostly us).

I don't think anyone proposes a "100% seperate" agenda. By thinking is more similar to how women's rights organizations and pro-choice organizations routinely partner (essentially 100% of the time) and yet the public clearly understands that NOW and NARAL are not the same group.

Separate is bad.  Very bad.  Ask the Republicans what happens when you tell everyone that 'you with us, or against us' and then proceed to exclude everyone from being with you.  You lose.

My instinctive response is to tangent into a political discussion here because I think that is a highly flawed statement - but I'll resist. Because I have found that the best way to alienate a lot of folks you'd like to be friends with is to dispute their political ideas and I'd rather makes friends here than converts.

I will say that the above NOW/NARAL comment is an example of being seperate sister organization with distinct goals but neither excluding or hostile to the other. I'm sure thousands of people are members of both and nothing would prevent one being active on both a LBG basis and also on a T basis. Furthermore, I think (based on what I've seen inside the "enemy" camp) that while there may be some negatives to a seperate identity, there are also a significant number of people who can more readily accept Trans people than they can homosexuality (for whatever reason and however wrong they may be)

I suppose this could be considered leaving your allies behind in a bid for seperate acceptance, but any acceptance is good and progress for all, or so it seems in my humble opinion.

  Inclusion is good, ask the current Dems and the old Reagan Republicans about that whole inclusion deal - it just doesn't win elections, it sweeps them. 

One political comment, I can't hold back - there are millions of Americans with more conservative views on economics in particular (since social issues are largely taking a back seat lately) who never sniffed the faintest tiniest nanosecond of an attempt at "inclusiveness" to their views and ideas in the last year+.

All too often everyone defines "inclusiveness" as "how many people can I get to vote for me to do what I want done"

Separatism is brought about by a few people, with a rather creepy interpersonal agenda, and I have rarely found it to be false.  Never in fact.

It's always pushed by people who share a willingness to trade being a small part in a large victory in order to be a leader of failure at a small level.

They do this because its all about martyrdom.  The point in most separatist movements always boils down to "I tried, but the people weren't ready (see, blame someone else) and failure gets elevated to a lofty position while simple ideas, like, say... winning and losing, get lost in the shuffle.

I'll pass on this part - psychoanalysis, and ascribing ill motivations to those whom I disagree with never struck me as productive. I prefer to assume that my opponent is as sincere in his or her motivations as I am (or as i am not if we want to state it negatively).

You see, as everyone who wins knows, The side with the most supporters in the end tends to win.  Just that simple.

So then you are saying that GWB in 2000 and 2004 was "inclusive"? Or GHWB in 1998? Or Nixon twice for cryinoutloud? Don't get too caught up in the last two election cycles and base your conclusions on a small sample size. If I may be so bold as to say so.

  Those that want to get out, just want to lose.

Because, that is what will happen.  Without access to the political system though the LGBT network that has been being set up for a long, long time now and not something to be casually done away with because you realized something personal about yourself in the last six months.

Laying aside the "last six months" dig, no, I am not a veteran of the wars so maybe my views are not worthy. (albeit I say again that there's value in having intel on the opponents)
BUT
At least dismiss what's actually being said rather than what's not. No one - as i read this thread - has any intention of forgoing those connections. No one has any intention of alienating or dismissing or distancing themselves from friends and allies and political connections that have been built up over decades. It IS possible to have a seperate identity and be a political sibling to the LGB cause rather than one organism.

One can CERTAINLY debate and disagree about the wisdom of that. I concede I could be VERY wrong on whether it is a strategically sound move. But, again, criticize the suggestion for what it actually is.

This political network of the LTBG has been a force in doing some pretty interesting political changes, and taking on some pretty awesome, if formidable targets and making some powerful enemies along the way.

As shown time and a again there are not enough of us to make a difference all alone.  We need to be part of a wider movement if we want to have our issues heard at a wider level.

Absolutely true. And speaking from an evangelical background, that's exactly where the progress has been most effective. Winning the sympathies of those who had been in opposition so that, by being "humanized" you/we become a less threatening "enemy". you don't HAVE to change the religious idea that it's "sin" in order to win folks like Rick Warren to the idea that Christianity demands love first over judgment.
That doesn't mean he's going to jump the fence and march for Gay marriage the first day - but it moves the ball, not just with him but with the millions who respect what he has to say.

You will probably not like this but it's true - the LGBT movement has made FAR more progress with the "opponents" by humanizing their situations and putting a sympathetic face on it than you ever did with pride parades and flag waving demonstrations. Again, I've heard and read the reactions within that community and I assure you you LOSE ground when the stereotypical leather and drag crowd turns out to dominate the image of the Pride parade.

It may not be fair, but it happens. And, since you said earlier that you are all about winning, it seems like maybe it's worth giving some thought to.

That being the case, every mainstream trans person - so long as T is considered synonymous with LGB - carries the stigma (again, not speaking of what OUGHT to be - speaking of what IS) of being considered the exact same thing as the flamboyant drag queen. That does us, or the mainstream LGB population for that matter, no favors.

Does that mean that i don't think that the more outrageous variants of LGBT don't deserve equality? Of course not. But if you and i get it, they will too, just because there will be no legal way to distinguish between the two. It seems to me that when the outrageous surge to the front, it is THOSE who are putting their narcissism ahead of strategic success.
If indeed anyone has such motives (and I'm not going to say they do)

By the way, the LG movement is not about sex.  Yeesh.  It's about your right to be attracted to who you choose, your right to be able to express yourself in a manner of your own choosing and to not be afraid of doing that day in and day out right out there in public.

Well, duh. Was there someone here who didn't know that?

I'm sorry, and I hope I'm reading this wrong, but it has the faint air of being talked down to as a veteran "schools" a newbie.

Well, I'm new to publicly identifying my gender identity and I'm obviously not a veteran of "The Movement" but I'm not a novice to politics and political movements and it could be that there's some value in a look behind the curtain of the folks on the other side.

That said, I see too much hostility in my conclusion and I DON'T want confrontation here (which is why I avoid political threads) so please know that. I DO respect your apparent experience and your views...except where those views express unnecessary hostility. Sometimes the unintended consequence of being a veteran of the wars is the dehumanization of the enemy.

[Alyssa M.]

You see, as everyone who wins knows, The side with the most supporters in the end tends to win.  Just that simple.  Those that want to get out, just want to lose.

Darn good post. I'll add to this part: That's why I liked the reasoning in the blog post; that's why I'm happy to include Friends, Family, Queer/Questioning, Intersexed, Allies, and anyone else who wants to get on board. There's plenty good room on the queer train. Almost everyone is a little bit queer, if only in their own small way, so almost everyone has something to gain from the movement. We ought to use that to our advantage.

Look, I don't really care if anyone "gets" what it means to be transgendered or transsexual. Frankly, I don't get it myself. I don't get what it means to be straight, either. Nor do I get what it means to fall in love; it just happens. What matters to me isn't that people get it, but that they let me be who I am without any need to defend myself for it.

[Genevieve Swann]

Transgender and homosexuality are the same? Say WHAT? Any one who has that misconception has their head where the sun doesn't shine. They are completely different issues. Also, according to Webster and a number of other scources Transgender is NOT a dilemma.  Dillemma: an argument necessitating a choice between equally unfavorable or disagreeable alternatives.  Any situation in which one must choose between unpleasant alternatives. Now I must question what is unpleasant about the alternative. Life can pretty darn unpleasant if one does not choose the alternative. Evangelicals should stay in there own yard. If they don't play the game then don't make the rules. End of conversation.

[Tammy Hope]

I suppose that what the blogger means by "dilemma" is not the dilemma that you and I face but the dilemma the church faces reconciling the call to "love thy neighbor" with that which they (incorrectly) believe to be sin (and the resulting implication they are condoning sin)

For those who sincerely believe it is a violation of God's will, that is a legitimate "two unpleasant possibilities" situation - churches constantly face the issue of how to love a person who is caught up in some (actual) sinful behavior while not giving the appearance of condoning the sin.

[NicholeW.]

Congratulations.  Comments that are both short-sighted, as well as narrow minded.  And the keen grasp of history the total ignorance as the history of these movements both apart and together.

Short-sighted, narrow minded, and ignorant are pretty much the origination trifecta of human problems.

I'm not going to go into why, and how these movements have both been long a part of the others space and culture.  Why that would be silly (during the month of June in particular, that's just a bonus) to think they got together just because they all were the same people, hanging out in the same places, with similar agendas.

But, I would like to say, that a separate agenda, away from and 100% divorced from the LG agenda would hurt both the gay and lesbian population as well as the Trans constituent (but for sure, mostly us).

Separate is bad.  Very bad.  Ask the Republicans what happens when you tell everyone that 'you with us, or against us' and then proceed to exclude everyone from being with you.  You lose.  Inclusion is good, ask the current Dems and the old Reagan Republicans about that whole inclusion deal - it just doesn't win elections, it sweeps them. 

Separatism is brought about by a few people, with a rather creepy interpersonal agenda, and I have rarely found it to be false.  Never in fact.

It's always pushed by people who share a willingness to trade being a small part in a large victory in order to be a leader of failure at a small level.

They do this because its all about martyrdom.  The point in most separatist movements always boils down to "I tried, but the people weren't ready (see, blame someone else) and failure gets elevated to a lofty position while simple ideas, like, say... winning and losing, get lost in the shuffle.

You see, as everyone who wins knows, The side with the most supporters in the end tends to win.  Just that simple.  Those that want to get out, just want to lose.

Because, that is what will happen.  Without access to the political system though the LGBT network that has been being set up for a long, long time now and not something to be casually done away with because you realized something personal about yourself in the last six months. This political network of the LTBG has been a force in doing some pretty interesting political changes, and taking on some pretty awesome, if formidable targets and making some powerful enemies along the way.

As shown time and a again there are not enough of us to make a difference all alone.  We need to be part of a wider movement if we want to have our issues heard at a wider level.


By the way, the LG movement is not about sex.  Yeesh.  It's about your right to be attracted to who you choose, your right to be able to express yourself in a manner of your own choosing and to not be afraid of doing that day in and day out right out there in public. 

Personally speaking. I thought it was a good and thoughtful post. Not nearly as harsh as Kat could have made it. But, perhaps not everyone cares for that brand of Earl Grey.

Fact does seem to be that well over half of MTFs (who often appear to think that they are the only "transsexuals") never sniff the gay/lesbian life or ambience until they transition and maintain their wives. They generally do so while strolling through life believing that all their family, old friends and acquaintances actually vouchsafe any belief or credibility to that notion. Most don't, they still perceive the relationship as heterosexual. Which is exactly why marriages in USA when one partner transitions are not immediately annulled by the states.

Fact two, even while maintaining this "lesbian" fiction those people mentioned generally find no comfort in dealings with homosexuals of either sex. There's usually a good deal of aversion to the actual people and their sexual attractions. Or those who could never have imagined themselves as "gay," or admitted to same, suddenly find "hormone-induced" attractions to males. O my goodness! Let's not get into the ridiculousness of that on it's face by pointing to lesbians who have always lived in an estrogen-rich internal environment and are not attracted to males.   

Third fact is that a lot of those "only transsexuals there are" folk also seem hellbent on suddenly assuming the trappings of womanhood, as if NOW, NARAL memberships and using a "female" restroom and suddenly admiting a fondness for various shades of pink and purple that they often avoided like the colors themselves carried the Human Immuno-deficiency Virus have now somehow become indicators that "I am a woman, dammit." Again, seems a bit unusual, such remarkable changes brought about by a hormonal change. I suppose I am just very sceptical and should prolly be dismissed for that very reason.

Hell, most people refuse to admit that they like anything outside the norm, whatsoever. Always the mad scramble to "fit in." Or, in actuality, the scramble to be what others seem to desire one to be and make sure that I color inside all of the lines all of the time. Well, except maybe for that small matter of a sex-change. Yeah, that one does kinda stick out as a rather glaring departure from the norm, eh?

And we haven't even gotten to drag-queens, genderqueers, androgynes (of all the many diverse shades.)

No, Kat's post makes everso much sense. Besides, just like this post, Kat's post wasn't "aimed" at anyone. It was aimed at ideas that found expression through the writings of some posters either in full or in one or two of a number of their posts in the thread. Don't take her post personally would be my advice.

Instead, just think about it a bit. If I can get the idea out of me that something is directed at me personally when I have not been specifically singled-out then I can often find something worthwhile to mentally chew on a bit. It can even become habitual to do so. Imagine that!

Nichole

And here I had decided to stay away from this thread after reading the first few posts to it! Things can change. 

[Tammy Hope]

To clarify - i wasn't "taking it personally" and have no idea to what extent if at all she meant me specifically.

I simply spoke from my own experience.

As i do now when I say this: i comment on LGBT issues only to the extent that I have an opinion. I'm not an "activist" and don't intend to be. I have no interest in joining the right groups or going to the right parades. I have no idea what the future holds regarding sexual orientation nor do I very much care either way. I'd be as content to be asexual as I would on either side of the fence or straddling it. I sure as heck don't have any sort of phobia about ending up on the "wrong" side. That doesn't mean that I have any discomfort at all spending time with or being friends with gay men or lesbians.

Frankly, I never saw any point in making the distinction about things that were not my business anyway. If there is an "ambiance" I'm missing then I was certainly unaware.

And I think the conduct of my life - perhaps to my detriment perhaps not - puts me pretty well "outside the lines" in a number of ways.

I will not presume to debate whether or not your "facts" actually are. I have no dog in that hunt.

All I'm doing, in any thread here, is just speaking from my own life - at least THAT, with all due respect, doesn't require me to make assumptions about others.

Admittedly, I have a LOT to learn, and admittedly I've no doubt heard a LOT of myths that turn out not to be true. I do not mean to come off as either arrogant, or overly sensitive. But I don't think it's too bold a statement to say we can all learn from each other, both the veteran of the wars and the naive newbie.