Dear Nicky

Dear Nicky,

Now, being born with physically unambiguous sex, I'm not going to pretend I know what you went through. Your experiences, I wouldn't wish on anyone, and I'm very sorry you had to suffer them. I'm sure you are smart enough to realize, however, that intersex and transsexuals have quite a lot in common. Specifically, the societal attitudes towards gender that caused you so much grief screw transsexuals much in the same way. You have a common enemy, so to speak.
So why all the transphobia, dear? What is wrong with transsexuals that you feel so offended at being associated with them? And what the fuck made you think that calling a transman a she is a good idea? Really, dude. No, just no. One would think being on the receiving end of societal prejudice regarding sex and gender would make you a bit more enlightened about the subject, but as I believe I've mentioned before, minorities can be very bigoted.
Regarding your comment here, no, Thomas is not a woman. Because, and get this through your head, gender is not determined by your reproductive organs. I'm not even going to mention the studies showing that gender identity seems to be hardwired in the brain. Wait, I just did. Oh well. I sure hope showing that their body has organs belonging to different sexes won't offend your delicate sensibilities about grouping them with the intersex.
To sum it up, you are an asshole, an idiot and a bigot. Being intersex does not excuse you from that.

Rebuttal:NationForMarriage.org

I recently issued a challenge which included, amongst other things, showing how same-sex marriage should be illegal. Today, I found a website that claims to do just that, so I being as open minded as I am I read through it, wondering if this was the one that would finally convince me there's actually a reason for all of this. I'm sure you can guess how that went. In case you can't because you are terminally stupid, no, I did not decide I'm an evil deviant that doesn't deserve rights. Partly because I'm not really gay, partly because nationformarriage.org are full of crap. Point by point rebuttal to follow, of course.

For starters, this is the phrase they claim sums up their position:

"Gays and Lesbians have a right to live as they choose,
they don’t have the right to redefine marriage for all of us."

First off, it's not just gays and lesbians that are "redefining" marriage. As mentioned above, I'm not gay (my sexuality would best be described as "complicated" without going into much detail) and yet I agree with them. Plenty of straight people do too. Second, you are implying that a huge social issue nowadays is nothing more than a discussion of semantics. What if it was decided that the state no longer recognises marriages, only civil unions (or whatever other term) which have no gender requirement? Would you be ok with that? You can keep your special word that you apparently love so much, everyone gets equal rights, and we don't have to deal with "separate but equal" crap. No complaints, right?

Language to avoid at all costs: "Ban same-sex marriage." Our base loves this wording. So do supporters of SSM. They know it causes us to lose about ten percentage points in polls. Don’t use it. Say we’re against “redefining marriage” or in favor or “marriage as the union of husband and wife” NEVER “banning same-sex marriage.”

Problem is, that is exactly what you want. As I pointed out above, there's a simple way to avoid the dreaded Redefinition of Doom that will apparently destroy us all. Therefore, if you were against redefinition but not for banning same-sex marriage, you shouldn't have any objections. Anyone taking any bets on whether they will?

Marriage is between a husband and wife. The people of [this state] do not want marriage to be anything but that. We do not want government or judges changing that definition for us today or our children tomorrow.

If you take into account the fluid nature of language (that means, definitions change over time), the fact that you are trying to protect a single word to the extent of denying other people rights seems kinda nonsensical. Makes one wonder what's so bloody great about a word that's already undergone a few changes in definition (Amount of spouses, age of consent, etc.)By the way, I wonder what you would think if we redefined "husband" or "wife" instead.

We need a marriage amendment to settle the gay marriage issue once and for all, so we don’t have it in our face every day for the next ten years.

How cute. You really think that legislation will silence the gay rights movement. Reality check, you'll have the issue on your face until you give them the right to marry the people they love.

Marriage is about bringing together men and women so children can have mothers and fathers.

That's why childless couples are forced to adopt and the sterile aren't allowed to marry, right? Wait, no. But I'm sure you have some evidence to support why this should be the case. I'm all ears

Do we want to teach the next generation that one-half of humanity—either mothers or fathers—are dispensable, unimportant? Children are confused enough right now with sexual messages. Let’s not confuse them further.

And your method of avoiding confusion is to put up pretence to defend a lie? Cold facts here, no study shows two parents of the same sex will be significantly worse at raising a child than two parents of different sex. If you can show otherwise, you are welcome to do so.

Are you a bigot? “Why do you want to take away people’s rights?”
“Isn’t it wrong to write discrimination into the constitution?”

A: “Do you really believe people like me who believe mothers and fathers both matter to kids are like bigots and racists? I think that’s pretty offensive, don’t you? Particularly to the 60 percent of African-Americans who oppose same-sex marriage. Marriage as the union of husband and wife isn’t new; it’s not taking away anyone’s rights. It’s common sense.”

Tip: Saying minorities can't be bigoted is a fallacy, just so you know. Offensive truths aren't any less true, and as it turns out, the overwhelming majority of people trying to keep same-sex marriage illegal are doing it out of homophobia. Guess what? That makes you a bigot. Your way of marriage being old does not make it better, and not granting rights is the moral equivalent of taking them away. In the case of California, rights were actually taken way, and if you succeed you'd be doing the same to Connecticut, Massachusetts, Iowa, and Vermont. Finally, "common sense" isn't an argument.

Isn’t the ban on gay marriage like bans on interracial marriage?

A: “Bans on interracial marriage were about keeping two races apart so that one race could oppress the other. Marriage is about bringing two sexes together, so that children get the love of their own mom and a dad, and women don’t get stuck with the enormous disadvantages of parenting alone.” “Having a parent of two different races is just not the same as being deprived of your mother—or your father.”

You've still to show any benefits coming from heterosexual parenting. Until then, null hypothesis means a certain gender is not a specific requirement in a parent. Plenty of kids grow up deprived of a dark-haired parent. Should we demand that all marriages be between a dark-haired and a light-haired person? If you are thinking that sounds absurd, take a good look at your own beliefs and show me how it's any different.

Why do we need a constitutional amendment? “Isn’t DOMA enough?”

A: “Lawsuits like the one that imposed gay marriage in Massachusetts now threaten marriage in at least 12 other states so far. We need a marriage amendment to settle the issue once and for all, so we don’t have this debate in our face every day. The people get to decide what marriage means. No-end run around the rules by activist judges or grandstanding San-Francisco-style politicians.”

The issue won't be settled. It's that simple. Even if you get your amendment, people will still fight for their rights. There's nothing you can do about that, and you'll have to learn to deal with it.

What’s the harm from SSM? “How can Adam and Steve hurt your marriage?”

A: “Who gets harmed? The people of this state who lose our right to define marriage as the union of husband and wife, that’s who. That is just not right.”

And you think your right to holding on to an archaic definition is more important than other people's right to marry?

A: “If courts rule that same-sex marriage is a civil right, then, people like you and me who believe children need moms and dads will be treated like bigots and racists.”

Hate to break it to you, but you already are, and deservedly so. Your belief is not based on facts, but on prejudice. That makes you a bigot. The legal status of same-sex marriage will not change that. It might show it more clearly, but it won't change it.

“Religious groups like Catholic Charities or the Salvation Army may lose their tax exemptions, or be denied the use of parks and other public facilities, unless they endorse gay marriage."

First, I've yet to see anything that makes me think this would happen. Second, it's about fucking time they joined us in this century

“Public schools will teach young children that two men being intimate are just the same as a husband and wife, even when it comes to raising kids.”

So? Do you want schools to lie to children? I'm not even sure that'd be an actual consequence of same-sex marriage, anyway.

“When the idea that children need moms and dads get legally stigmatized as bigotry, the job of parents and faith communities trying to transmit a marriage culture to their kids is going to get a lot harder.”

Homophobia is bigotry. This talk about children needing mums and dads is either ignorant crap or a thinly veiled excuse for that homophobia. If those are the values you wish to instil in your children, go ahead. You are free to teach your kids as you see fit, but don't expect the rest of us to give our silent consent, because we won't and you don't deserve it.

Why do you want to interfere with love?

A: “Love is a great thing. But marriage isn’t just any kind of love; it’s the special love of husband and wife for each other and their children.”

Been through this before, your right to your special word isn't more important than people's right to marry those they love. If you really care that much, I refer you once again to the plan I outlined in my first point.

What about benefits? Don’t gay couples and their kids need the benefits and protections of marriage?”

A: “If medical proxies aren’t working, let’s fix that problem. If people need health care, let’s get them health care. Don’t mess with marriage.”

A: “The issue isn’t benefits, it is marriage. Local folks can decide benefits. This is about the meaning of marriage, our most basic social institution for protecting children. “

"Mess" with marriage? We want to fix it to account for a situation it doesn't. Simpler and less discriminatory. And yes, the issue (or part of it) is benefits. Get over your delusions, marriage isn't what protects children. Parents, married or not, are.

Isn’t divorce the real threat to marriage?

A: “High rates of divorce are one more reason we should be strengthening marriage, not conducting radical social experiments on it.”

OK, that really doesn't make much sense. At all. How is more people getting married going to weaken marriage? By the way, did you know the highest rates of divorce in your country, after Nevada, are in the Bible Belt? Coincidentally the most homophobic area in your country. Gets you thinking, doesn't it?

Are you saying gays cannot be good parents?

A: “Two men might each be a good father, but neither can be a mom. The ideal for children is the love of their own mom and dad. No same-sex couple can provide that.”

Put up or shut up. Show how different-sex parents are better at childrearing than same-sex parents.

9. What about older or infertile couples? If they marry why not same-sex couples?

A: “Every man and woman who marries is capable of giving any child they create (or adopt) a mother and a father. No same-sex couple can do this. It’s apples and oranges.”

Talk about missing the point. And considering you are answering your own questions, that is something of an accomplishment. This question (when asked by a rational person) aims to show that childrearing isn't the purpose of marriage. Also, once again, give us a reason to buy your crap about children needing male and female figures.

Note: Digging through the site, I found a document that is supposed to support their assertions on heterosexual marriage being better for children. Curiously enough, all the statistics provided were about single parents, unmarried couples and divorced couples. The difference between single parenting and same-sex parenting should be obvious enough (hint: one of them has half the amount of parents). Those about divorced and unmarried couples do not apply to married couples, unless they assume that homosexual and heterosexual couples have significant differences in parenting, which is of course what they were trying to prove in the first place. We call that particular fallacy begging the question or petitio principii.

I haven't yet checked the sources of the statistics either, they linked to americanvalues.org which is not exactly an unbiased source. Not one study on homosexual couples raising kids, I noted. The document repeats some of the bullshit above plus adds two quotes as scare tactics. Too bad any two random people who may or may not have been misquoted are not representative of an entire movement, otherwise they might have a semblance of an argument

In conclusion, the challenge is still open.

Hetero-normatividad

[English version]

Paradigma hetero-normativo. Para una frase que suena tan bien, el concepto que representa me da ganas de vomitar.

La hetero-normatividad es la creencia de que hay una cierta norma para la sexualidad e identidad de género, específicamente, que las personas con penes se identifican como hombres y les atraen las personas con vaginas, que se identifican como mujeres y les atraen los antes mencionadas portadores de pene. Todo lo que se desvía de esa norma es tratado como una abominación, inexistente o una decisión consciente e inmoral de destruir la sociedad. Exagero, pero no por mucho.

Por supuesto, negarse a creer en la existencia de gente que se desvía del paradigma es una posición completamente divorciada de la realidad, que sólo puede ser sostenida por aquellos cuya edad se expresa en un solo dígito. (aunque, los creacionistas, geocentristas y tierraplanistas todavía existen, así que debería saber que a la realidad no siempre se la tiene en tan alta estima como se merece). La homosexualidad, la bisexualidad, la transexualidad, el bigenerismo, el androginismo, y la intersexualidad destruyen completamente esta posición. Algunos de éstos son más aceptados que otros (sobre lo que me quejaré en otro momento), pero la mayoría de los seres humanos admiten la existencia de por lo menos uno. El problema yace más comúnmente en las otras dos reacciones a los que rompemos la norma.

Tratarnos como si elegimos tener un cuerpo, sexualidad o identidad inusuales también va en contra de la lógica y la evidencia, pero en cierta manera es menos conspicuo. Está demostrado, por ejemplo, que la homosexualidad es causada por factores genéticos y hormonales, pero ese es el tipo de información que los homófobos (y la mayoría del resto del mundo) no tienen o ignoran cuando se les presenta. Por qué alguien elegiría ser parte de una de las minorías más odiadas del planeta me escapa, pero en la mente de algunas personas, tenemos control absoluto de nuestra sexualidad y la gente se levanta un día y dice "che, que ganas tengo de cojerme a alguien con mis mismos genitales hoy" (parece que todo el mundo es bisexual en su mundo de fantasía. Ojalá...). Y por supuesto, los trans solo se hacen pasar por el otro sexo porque son una manga de pervertidos.

Y después están los que nos consideran una aberración, una perversión del orden natural del universo. Son los que nos dicen "Sí, naciste así, pero sigue estando mal. Es una enfermedad que tenés que curar o estar eternamente avergonzado, no otro estilo de vida". Son los que mandan a su hijos gay a programas de "reforma de homosexuales". Son los que dicen que los transexuales son despreciables por tratar de vivir como lo que sus mentes les dicen que son, en vez de lo que tienen (o no) en su pecho y entrepierna. Al carajo con lo que realmente sos, viví como los demás o volvete un paria.

Hay mucha superposición entre las tres posturas que describí arriba, obviamente. No es inusual que alguien niega la existencia del bigenerismo, mientras que dicen que las lesbianas eligen ser como son y que los intersexuales nacieron deformes y tienen que esconderlo para siempre. Cualquiera sea la especie de retrasado a la que pertenecen, tiene una cosa importante en común:

Nunca terminan diciéndote la razón por la que lo que somos está mal. O por lo menos una buena razón. Ya escuché apelaciones al orden natural de las cosas, pero ¿en qué basás esta idea de un orden natural? ¿lo que sentís que 'es así'? ¿Cualquier absurda deidad en la que creés? (por cierto, si sos cristiano, te recomendaría leer Gálatas 3:28) Eso es una pelotudez, pura y simplemente. Es mi vida personal. Cómo la vivo me afecta a mí, y a aquellos que deciden ser parte de ella. A nadie más. Si no te gusta el matrimonio entre personas del mismo sexo, no tengas uno. A la mierda, si querés, corta todo vínculo con las personas que tengan uno, lo más probable es que no te extrañen. Pero no obligues a los demás a vivir como vos querés. No crees leyes discriminatorias que les prohíben casarse con la person que aman. Si no estás cómodo con la transexualidad, ¿sabes qué? Nadie te está pidiendo que te cortes la pija. Nadie te pidió que empieces a usar pollera. Lo que te piden es que les dejes vivir su vida como les parezca.

Yo tengo suficiente suerte que mi disrupción particular de este orden aparente es algo que puedo esconder fácilmente. Sé perfectamente bien que cuando les diga, la gente va a pensar que estoy confundido o que quiero ser especial o alguna otra idiotez, y aunque no me gusta, puedo vivir con eso. Preferiría poder vivir mi vida completamente como quiero que ocultar parte de mi personalidad, pero sobreviviré. Otros no tienen tanta suerte. Otros no son un punto medio como yo, sino que están por completo del otro lado. Y cuando viven como ellos mismos, son atacados, insultados, por algo que no le hace mal a nadie.

Esto es un desafío abierto. Cualquiera que pueda mostrarme por qué la hetero-normatividad es mejor que reconocer que el sexo físico, la sexualidad, y la identidad de género son un continuo y que cada punto es igualmente válido, que hable. Decime por qué los trans tienen que vivir según su género de nacimiento, por qué el matrimonio entre personas del mismo sexo debería ser ilegal, por qué deberíamos cortar los genitales de los intersexuales para hacerlos 'normales'. Si no podés, amablemente te pido que te vayas a la mierda y dejes que la gente viva su vida.

Hetero-normativity

[Versión en castellano]

Hetero-normative paradigm. For such a nice-sounding phrase, the concept it represents makes me want to puke.

Hetero-normativity is the belief that there is a certain norm for gender identity and sexuality, namely, people with penises identify as men and are attracted to people with vaginas, which identify as women and are attracted to the aforementioned penis-havers. Anything that deviates from that norm is treated as either an abomination, non-existent, or an immoral, conscious choice to destroy society. Hyperbole, but not by much.

Of course, refusing to believe in people that don't conform to the paradigm is a position completely divorced from reality, which could only be held by those whose age is expressed in single digits. (Then again, flat-eathers, geocentrists and creationists still exist, so I should know reality is not always held in as great an esteem as it should be). Homosexuality, bisexuality, transgenderism, bigenderism, androgyny, and intersex conditions completely demolish this position. Some of those are more accepted than others (a rant for another time), but most human beings with a working brain acknowledge at least one. The problem lies more commonly on the other two reactions to norm-breakers.

Treating us like we are making a choice in having an unusual body, gender identity or sexuality also goes completely against the evidence and logic, but somewhat less conspicuously so. Homosexuality , for example, has been shown to have genetic and hormonal causes, but this is the kind of information homophobes (and most other people, for that matter) don't have or ignore when presented. Why someone would choose to be part of one of the most hated minorities in the world is beyond me, but in the minds of certain people, people have absolute control over their sexuality and they just wake up one day and say: "Hey, I totally feel like fucking someone with my same genitals today". (Apparently everyone is bisexual in this fantasy world of theirs. If only...) And of course, trans people just feel like acting as the other sex because they are freaky perverts.

And then there's the ones that consider us an aberration, some perversion of the natural order of the universe. They are the ones that tell us "Sure, you were born like that, but it's still wrong. It's a disease to be cured or be perpetually ashamed of, not another lifestyle." They are the ones that send their gay children to "homosexual reform" programmes. They are the ones that say that transsexuals are despicable for trying to live as what their minds tell them they are, instead of what they have (or not) in their chest and crotch. Screw what you truly are, live like the rest of us or be a fucking pariah.

There is a lot of overlap between the three positions I described above, obviously. It's not unusual for people to deny the existence of bigenderism, while saying that lesbians choose to be that way and the intersex were born deformed and should hide it forever. Whatever the breed of retard people happen to belong to, they have one big thing in common:

They never come around to telling you the reason what we are is wrong. Or at least any good reason. I've heard appeals to the natural order of things, but what do you base this idea of a natural order on? What feels "right"? Whatever absurd deity you happen to believe in? (incidentally, if you happen to be a Christian, I'd recommend reading Galatians 3:28) That's bullshit, plain and simple. It's my personal life. How I live it affects me, and those that choose to be a part of it. Nobody else. If you don't like same-sex marriage, then by all means don't have one. Hell, go as far as cutting all ties with those that do, odds are you won't be missed. But don't force other people to live like you want to. Don't create discriminatory laws that forbid them from marrying who they love. If you are not comfortable with transgenderism, then guess what? Nobody is asking you to cut off your dick. Nobody asked you to start wearing a skirt. What they ask you is to let them live their lives as they see fit.

I happen to be lucky enough that my particular disruption of this perceived order is something I can easily conceal. I know full well that when I tell them, people will think I'm merely confused or wanting to be special or some other retarded crap, and while I don't like that, I can deal with it. I'd rather be able to live my life fully as I see fit than hide part my personality, but I'll survive. Others are not so lucky. Others are not a middle point like myself, but fully to the other side. And when they live as themselves, they are insulted, attacked, vilified, for something that harms nobody.

This is an open challenge. Anyone who can show me why hetero-normativity is better than recognising that physical sex, sexuality, and gender identity are a continuum and every point of it is equally valid, speak up. Tell me why transfolk should live by their birth gender, why same-sex marriage should be illegal, why we should cut off the genitals of the intersex to make them "normal". If you can't, then kindly fuck off and let people live their lives.