![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
In response to a post elsewhere about the proposed Swedish law to make sterilisation mandatory for trans people undergoing surgical transition, this was posted:
Fortunately laws are not made on the basis of what sickens you. Or they should not be. Whose threshold would we use, after all? If laws were made on the basis of what sickened others, trans people might not be allowed to have surgery at all, or perhaps HRT. Or maybe same-gender romantic / sexual relations would be forbidden. So might eating seafood - my sister finds that pretty sickening.
The way you go about disrespecting Thomas Beattie's identity just because he did something you do not approve of with his body is pretty disgusting. It sickens me, a little, to see you saying such things while talking about how 'liberal' you are.
What in the world would be natural - and here I mean something like 'occurring without human technological interference' about a trans woman becoming pregnant? It is far more natural for a trans man to give birth, as that requires less interference in biology.
I hope you are never in a position to enforce on others your prejudices about what people should and should not be allowed to do with their bodies.
Addendum: Oh, and I see you have decided they - Thomas Beattie and his wife - "obviously" made a new person for the attention and not for, oh, any of the reasons they actually gave. I have some important information to impart to you: people are not necessarily different for your entertainment or to secure your attention. Indeed, it often has nothing whatsoever to do with you. Reminds me of seeing last night on the 'news' talk about The Veronicas caught on film kissing and people speculating they were doing it for publicity.
Really, deviance from the norm does not exist in order to be a spectacle for public entertainment.
Apparently I'm alone in thinking this is a good idea. At least, in one regard.
The whole "pregnant man" scenario just sickens me, and I'm almost as liberal as they come regarding transpeople.
If she wanted to be a man, then she should take whatever comes with being a man, and that includes the inability to become pregnant. This entire thing was so bleeding obviously done just for the 15 minutes of fame it's disgusting.
Conversely, however, if there were a way for a transgirl to get pregnant, I would be all for it. Women can get pregnant, it's only natural.
So this has nothing to do with my opinions on transpeople having children. What it does have to do with is someone wanting to become a man and refusing to take everything that comes with it.
Sex isn't a buffet, people. You don't pick and freaking choose what tidbits you'd like to partake in. Ugh.
Fortunately laws are not made on the basis of what sickens you. Or they should not be. Whose threshold would we use, after all? If laws were made on the basis of what sickened others, trans people might not be allowed to have surgery at all, or perhaps HRT. Or maybe same-gender romantic / sexual relations would be forbidden. So might eating seafood - my sister finds that pretty sickening.
The way you go about disrespecting Thomas Beattie's identity just because he did something you do not approve of with his body is pretty disgusting. It sickens me, a little, to see you saying such things while talking about how 'liberal' you are.
What in the world would be natural - and here I mean something like 'occurring without human technological interference' about a trans woman becoming pregnant? It is far more natural for a trans man to give birth, as that requires less interference in biology.
I hope you are never in a position to enforce on others your prejudices about what people should and should not be allowed to do with their bodies.
Addendum: Oh, and I see you have decided they - Thomas Beattie and his wife - "obviously" made a new person for the attention and not for, oh, any of the reasons they actually gave. I have some important information to impart to you: people are not necessarily different for your entertainment or to secure your attention. Indeed, it often has nothing whatsoever to do with you. Reminds me of seeing last night on the 'news' talk about The Veronicas caught on film kissing and people speculating they were doing it for publicity.
Really, deviance from the norm does not exist in order to be a spectacle for public entertainment.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-08-05 02:02 (UTC)From:Sex isn't a buffet, people. You don't pick and freaking choose what tidbits you'd like to partake in. Ugh.
Says who? Zie talk about this like it's just something that's... true.. but howso? "You don't pick and freaking choose". You DON'T? Why not? Who stops us? Simply b/c somebody acts as if something is a law of the universe doesn't make it so >:\
And I love the use of female pronouns to refer to a transman. How very "liberal" of zir.
What a ridic heterocentric comment >:\
And I'm TIRED of lesbian kisses in public by celebrities being always spun as "OMG DID THEY DO IT JUST FOR ATTENTION!?" WHO CARES. Is it invalid if they do? What they do and why they do it is their own business >:| I'm tired of hetero cisppl thinking everything exists for them and to get their attention! >:O
no subject
Date: 2008-08-05 03:16 (UTC)From:Conversely: should they not achieve 'perfect' change, there is no benefit - except in societal opinion, which is not always a very good basis for judgement - to pretend those lacks, remnants and additional abilities do not exist.
I would say he is to be commended for taking full possible advantage of his biological situation when preferred other choices were denied.
Finally: regardless of what might be the 'best' approach, only they have the right to choose this as it is not medically required, only by [public or otherwise] opinion.
The rest is just silly.
no subject
Date: 2008-08-05 09:23 (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2008-08-05 12:18 (UTC)From:Which is a shame. I'd gladly give up my boobs and the monthly leaking event, but I have no wish for any other dangly bits that always get in your way.
no subject
Date: 2008-08-05 15:54 (UTC)From:In fact on reading this (for anybody reading I was the original poster re. this piece of news) I lost a whole night's sleep and more. What if they banned us from the bathrooms next, for example?
no subject
Date: 2008-08-05 17:30 (UTC)From:"Your body can only work in ways I want it to!"
Like hell. What a load of bull.
no subject
Date: 2008-08-09 03:17 (UTC)From:Heh, unless you live in America, where the president obviously has the liberty to claim birth control is a type of abortion, and therefore rendering its ability to be covered by health insurance as useless.
And regarding the rest of your post, TOTALLY agree with you. While the pregnant man did bother me, it was because of the publicity stunt than anything else that irritated me. Otherwise, I say, if a transman has the ability and desire to become pregnant, more power to him! It's not our place to dictate what one can and cannot do with one's own body.
As before, though, except in America. ::sighs::