Who's to say whether their decision was good or not? Certainly not you or me. "Making a good decision" is a matter of personal opinion. Especially in the case of a transsexual individual, usually the gender reassignment is the only thing that prevents them from drowning in depression and eventually committing suicide. Having the surgery provides them the ability to be a happy and productive human being.
A single article, written by a single man, using his "observations" does not make a scientific study. Until otherwise shown, it makes more sense that the millions of people who are able to live their lives happily as a result of having this surgery speaks for itself.
I would not want someone who had an arm or leg electively amputated in the military either.
If they are physically capable (due to a prosthetic limb) of performing their duties and mentally capable of following orders. Then why not? Should we disallow anyone who has ever had any elective surgery? Should we disallow only those who have had elective plastic surgery? How is it different to have a limb amputated electively than to have a breast reduction? Or for a guy who has had some sort of penis enlargement surgery? Or any other cosmetic surgery? The only difference I can see is a social stigma.
Here's a twist. Heterosexual males are responsible for the vast majority of harassment and rape in the military. Since being a rapist is a very clear sign of mental disturbance, why are all heterosexual males allowed to serve in the military?
Here's a better question, why do you refuse to answer my questions? Why would you not want a transsexual serving in the military under as their target gender? Hell, why wouldn't you want someone who had an elective amputation to serve in the military?
But those apps they write for thousands of variations of computers, really, really suck for performance and battery life and often in the UI because it is not tailored to the device.
So your claim is that you can't write a high-performance low-power application for a computer that will run on thousands of hardware variations? I call bullshit. In addition, putting a custom skin on the OS home screen and a couple of the applications doesn't prevent anything UI oriented with a developer's application. Android provides ways of defining the layout for multiple situations regarding screen size, device orientation, resolution, etc. Just like you can do on a desktop, and they don't take extra performance or battery life in order to have these options available, the OS knows it's parameters via API calls and uses the appropriately defined UI.
the fact that those apps suck on computers isn't a big deal in most cases because computers are built with excessive resources to compensate.
Again, bullshit. Excessive resources doesn't compensate for a sucky application. It might compensate for a poorly written application that performs horribly but that's not a question of fragmentation or compatibility that's a question of being a good developer. Again, dealing with the different hardware configurations does NOT take extra performance or battery life, it's just calling APIs and knowing how to develop.
The UI component is more important because there is just one interface per device and it is not standardized.
You're guaranteed a touch screen and a keyboard. The rest you can call APIs to find out whether the hardware is there or not for a camera or whatnot. Obviously if you want to write an application that requires the use of a camera, shockingly you can't use it on a device without a camera.
if an app sucks on a PC, it is a problem, even if most users don't understand that particular app or plugin is the problem. It just isn't a deal breaking problem that will cause them to buy a different type of computer, because the impact is mitigated by the hardware.
And if an app sucks on a smartphone, it is a problem and most users will just uninstall the app. They won't buy a different smartphone because a single app misbehaved, they'll find a different app to serve the same purpose because there's almost always another app.
Google is building profilers that let advanced users figure out which apps are a problem. Apple and MS are requiring specific frameworks and vetting apps for performance. Clearly it is a problem, one that doesn't go away because it is also a minor problem on desktop machines.
This has absolutely nothing to do with fragmentation. All computers, from laptops to desktops to smartphones have limited resources and you want to performance check your application on the device obviously. On a laptop or desktop or netbook you have a multitude of different processors, graphics cards, sound cards, amounts of ram, etc. On an Android phone you have a few different processors and a few different graphics chips and some varying amounts of ram. On a laptop or desktop or netbook you have widely varying screen sizes and resolutions just like a smartphone. You have widely varying UI set ups just like a smartphone. This problem is not unique to Android, nor is it worse on Android phones than on a desktop, laptop, or a netbook running windows or some variation of linux. If developers can, without fail and without a problem, develop high-performance low-battery applications on those systems, then they can do it on Android. Low-and-behold many, VERY MANY, do. Look at applications like Angry Birds, it's a graphically well done game that runs on most (if not all, i don't know for sure) Android phones without sucking the battery dry. TweetDeck put out a chart showing that with over 200 "identifiers" of versions of android (most of which were nearly identic
You're right, I can complain about the $99/yr cost. There is absolutely no reason why I should have to pay an additional $99/year just to install what i want on a device I own.
That's actually exactly how it works. Android has API calls that handle it all. The only "worry" that you can legitimately have is performance on different hardware and the availability of certain features. Availability is handled by the ability to query whether something exists, and performance depends on your application and can be tested (mostly) using AVD's. You might want to test a small variety of phones (pick one with the lowest feature set you want to support, the highest and maybe 1 or 2 in the middle).
No one is proposing that we all move to consoles for the laptop/desktop market... but you're conflating that market with the mobile market where there are different needs and limitations.
Just because there are different needs and limitations doesn't remove the analogy. On a desktop or laptop you have all the same differences: different hardware, monitor, resolution, mouse/touchpad/trackball, joystick or no joystick, discrete or onboard graphics, discrete or onboard audio, drivers out the wazoo, varying amounts of ram, cpu, and disk space, built in camera or USB connected, or no camera at all, etc. etc. etc. Just because the environment's needs are different doesn't eliminate the fact that it's a similar situation. You have a system with a large amount of variation in the type and amount of hardware and specs. If developers can write applications for windows and linux that successfully run on hundreds if not thousands of variations of hardware for desktops, laptops, netbooks, etc. Then developers can write applications for Android. This type of variation is new in the mobile space which is the only reason why it keeps getting this much attention, it's not a new development for software developers and should stop being treated as such. It's just simply FUD.
If you've showered with someone for your entire career in the military. Then knowing they are gay should not change anything. If you've showered without any problems with an individual and the only difference now is you know he is gay, then yes, it is homophobic to suddenly now have a problem.
Someone else in the thread mentioned it is rare nowadays for group showers in the military, there are usually individual stalls. Given that situation, your argument falls apart. The only argument you have made is that it might make group showers that are mostly non-existent awkward and uncomfortable. The fact that you are changing a policy does not in and of itself cause a distraction. Especially something like repealing DADT which should have no distraction except for some people being surprised to learn that their buddy is gay. Some people will choose to continue to keep it secret, others will have no problem letting people know once they are sure they won't be discharged for it.
I doubt people will go around skipping shouting "I'm gay! I'm gay!" But when "the guys" pal around talking about their significant others, now the guy who is gay would be able to join the conversation truthfully if they are so inclined. If anything, it should relieve distractions.
They do have counseling. A lot of counseling. A helluva lot of counseling. In fact, most doctors (I say most because some are unscrupulous enough to allow this) won't allow someone to have the gender reassignment surgery without having spent years living as the target gender complete with hormone therapy. In addition, that isn't started until it's been determined that they are mentally stable enough to make this decision for themselves and have not rushed into it. There are many who start down the path of this idea, and then decide not to or are disallowed by their doctor due to mitigating factors. It's not like you can walk into a hospital and demand gender reassignment surgery.
This is one of many things, where counseling just doesn't cut it. Science doesn't yet know what causes the gender identity problems, but most agree that it is a chemical issue within the brain among other things. Counseling doesn't fix that. Obviously for you, this is a hard concept to grasp and I understand that. It's not exactly a socially accepted way to live yet. There's many societal stigmas involved with gender reassignment.
You view gender reassignment as no different than elective amputation. Is not all plastic surgery the same as that? Whether you're having liposuction, a tummy tuck, breast enlargement/reduction, nosejob, etc. All of those are no different than an elective amputation in my eyes. Yet, gender reassignment is very different. For all of those you can go in and if you have enough money, they'll willingly perform the operation for you. Most doctors (again, because some are unscrupulous enough to do it) will not allow it without the counseling and other parts that come along with it.
You're free to believe what you like. You still have not responded to the topic of a transsexual individual in the military. I can only assume that you have no legitimate rebuttal. Otherwise, I'd be interested to know your view. What is the problem with a Male-to-Female transsexual or a Female-to-Male transsexual in the military, wearing the uniform and generally behaving as a normal member of the target gender?
Perhaps you should do some studying as well. There are several theories behind the biological causes of gender identity disorder, but no universally accepted one. Generally all of those physical and mental characteristics are caused by various hormones or lack thereof. Thus, while a gender reassignment operation is not entirely perfect, nor is it faultless, it provides what the person needs. That their biological sexual characteristics match the chemically determined gender in their mind.
Yes, man and woman are what we use to refer to males and females based on biological sex. This is not the problem and has very little to do with gender, which is a social construct. When someone has a baby boy, they generally paint the room blue and buy toy trucks and little sporting equipment, things society has associated with males. By contrast, when someone has a baby girl they generally paint the room pink and buy them dolls, dresses, etc. things that society has associated with females.
The idea that women desire to cook, play with dolls, go shopping, etc. is a gender identity that is formed by society. By the same token, the idea that males should all focus on things like cars and sports, is also a gender identity formed by society. It's why people look strangely at a young boy who likes to play with dolls or call a girl who likes sports a "tomboy". It's why people generally frown upon males wearing dresses.
Biological science has reached the point where combinations of physical surgery and hormone therapy effectively does change the biological sex of an individual, even to the point where they can physically have sex properly as the desired sex. It's obviously not perfect, but it is enough that it solves the problem for these individuals.
Those who surgically make themselves appear to be female and those who surgically make themselves to appear to be male have a medical need for the surgery as much as someone else who needs any kind of treatment for their mental health. These are individuals who take hormone therapy and live as the opposite sex for a long time before actually having the operation. You may frown upon it or not understand it, but it is very real. They haven't been "led to believe", they have been informed. Most gender reassignment surgeries result in an outward appearance that is indistinguishable from someone who has been born of that sex, save maybe for a couple scars. So effectively, there is no difference.
Getting back to the topic at hand, you have not responded to my answer as to why they should be allowed to serve in the military. As long as they are capable of following orders, getting through basic training, and carrying out their duties, why should they not be allowed to serve? If they find a guy who can bench press 400lbs, run a mile in under 4 minutes, is a marksmen with a gun, and is completely willing and able to follow orders, should they not allow him to enlist because he was original born female? If he had a sex reassignment surgery and then trained for years to be in the military, why should he not be allowed in?
How is a desire to have a legal, ethical, and medically approved surgery "mutilating their body"? Does this mean that anyone who has plastic surgery of any kind is also "mutilating" their body?
Many people who serve in the military are "mentally disturbed" in various ways. The question is not whether someone who is mentally disturbed be allowed in the armed forces, the question is whether or not this causes a problem for the individual to follow orders and be capable of meeting all the requirements necessary to serve. There are plenty of sociopaths, anti-social, borderline, etc. in the military. As long as these do not prevent them in any way from carrying out their tasks, performing the duties assigned to them, and do not present a danger to others, they are allowed to serve, usually without even knowing they have these disorders, or caring.
That said, the only argument you can make is that transgendered falls under the problem of "gender identity disorder" where one's perception of their gender is at odds with their biological sex. Note, transgendered is not always about sexuality, but it is always about gender identity. Granted we're only talking about a section of people who are transgendered, the ones who desire to have a sex change. Not all transgendered individuals desire this. However, how is a male-to-female transexual, after the operation, different from someone who was born female? With the exception of the ability to become pregnant. Sure there is a social stigma attached but otherwise there is no difference. As long as they are able to follow orders and serve, why shouldn't they be allowed to?
And before anybody comments, that in Assange's case, they are trumped up charges by the CIA or some government, please don't. The charges against him were filed before his current leaks which are pissing off many a government, particularly the US. Besides, do you really think if the CIA was clairvoyant, they wouldn't use this ability on something more important like Iraq or Afghanistan?
The charges were filed just after the release of the Iraq war documents from Wikileaks, and were dismissed due to lack of evidence. They then came back to the forefront of media and everywhere with no new evidence just after the cable dump. Regardless whether you believe that it is a political attack or not, or whether you believe he is guilty or not, you have to admit it is a very large coincidence that the charges only showed up after he pissed off the US government, twice.
That said, they could be just taking advantage of a situation that presented itself. It is really his word against theirs, however the only evidence that does exist is against them considering that one doesn't usually throw a party for their rapist after the rape occurred. They also didn't come forward until they talked to each other. The likely scenario, that I saw after the charges were originally filed, is that they had gone to the police in Sweden for advice on if there was some way to force him to take an STD test. Apparently he had convinced them both on separate occasions to have sex without a condom. When they learned of each other they had asked him to take a test and he refused. In Sweden you are allowed to ask "advice" from Police to avoid the situation of "filing a false report" that can happen. Supposedly an enterprising DA convinced Sexual misconduct charges to be had (note, not rape. Sexual misconduct) as a vehicle for forcing him to take a test.
Of course the validity of that is in question, but it was claimed to be from a copy of the police report filed with the original charges. *Shrug* The point is that it's a he-said she-said case.
Can you please cite where this information that he has posted resulted in any deaths? Considering that the pentagon has many more resources than you do and could not find a single instance of someone dying as a result of the information leaked, I doubt that you could cite one.
Yes, I did read the post. I was making the point that I disagree with his statement of being unrelated, while simultaneously explaining how the relatedness is thin enough that it's easy to see how they are unrelated since they are related only by virtue of both being about sexuality. At the same time I was responding to the original post on the thread regarding the statement about lawsuits.
Are you really being so pedantic that you think that my post was only tangentially related to yours and thus I should have replied to the post you replied to rather than yours? Wait....of course you are, this is slashdot.
They are related but not the same. They are related simply because it has to do with the sexuality and gender identity of the person. In fact, most of the groups for "gay rights" are in fact variations of "gay, lesbian, straight, bisexual, transgendered and transexual" rights groups.
Also, considering that in order to get a sex change, it is required to live as the opposite sex for a long time. I welcome the first lawsuit of a transgendered person to live in the barracks of their target gender, and hope the lawsuit isn't required to get them to be allowed.
You're completely right, the time and effort should have been put into other things. However the criticism is not that DADT should have just been left alone, the criticism is to blast every single one of the people who made it take so long.
DADT was a very important civil rights issue. The answer to controversy is not to drop it and move on (like most politicians do) but to smack down everyone who creates that controversy.
Pay-As-You-Go internet is very bad for google. It is also very good for any ISPs who set up competing products to google's products. It's the net neutrality nightmare scenario. ISP charges $/MB for using google's service and nothing to use the ISPs service. This is part of the "net neutrality" proposal that the FCC will be voting on which is really not anything like net neutrality at all.
When you create a work for hire, you are the author. The person who paid you holds the copyright. Being the author and having the copyright are not the same thing. If you create a work, you are the author/artist, regardless of the circumstances. You just may not hold the copyright.
Create a painting is a copy? That only makes sense if the painting you've created is a copy of another painting, otherwise it is a original work or a derivative work.
Take a photo? That depends on what it is a photo of. If I take a photo of my cat, what is that a copy of? It's definitely not a copy of my cat. If I take a photo of a live performance by a band, what it is a copy of? It's definitely not a copy of the band or of their music.
Record yourself playing an original musical composition? That's not a copy, that's an original. It's not a copy of the sheet music, it's not a copy of some other music because it's an original composition. (Assuming you are the one who composed it of course.) Now, if you record yourself performing someone else's original musical composition, that is a copy. And it's kind of obvious.
Definition: Copy: noun - "an imitation, reproduction, or transcript of an original: a copy of a famous painting." there are other definitions obviously, due to context. Like when dealing with the text of something to be published. Anyways, that seems to be a very valid and correct definition of a copy.
Definition: Author: noun - "the maker of anything; creator; originator: the author of a new tax plan." or "a person who writes a novel, poem, essay, etc.; the composer of a literary work, as distinguished from a compiler, translator, editor, or copyist." That also seems to be very valid. If I'm a programmer and I create a program, I am the author. The company I work for owns the product, the copyright, etc. but I am still the author.
So, no. Those examples help illustrate my point, not your problem.
As was said in another thread. "Mainstream" porn is being outdone by amateur porn on the internet. It's a case of the larger companies having to compete with smaller operations. Considering the studies that have been done for music, I'd be curious what a study on the income to porn studios is like nowadays and how piracy has changed it. Consider the movement from selling videos and magazines individually to the "buffet" style online subscription model that a lot of sites of moved to. The casual porn viewer isn't worth much to them, it's the avid watchers and collectors that are. Therefore, sites like redtube.com and youporn or whatever become popular with the casual watchers and the more avid ones pay for "premium" subscriptions to get more. Seems like a very nice system that works. Just like movies, the floating pirated versions serve as a hook and free advertising for those subscription services, special editions, the dvd's themselves. People will purchase a porn DVD simply to support a studio (just like they would for a movie). Or maybe they would just donate directly to the studio so they aren't funding the distributer, just the studio itself. If they so choose.
I can understand the logic behind saying "Fair Use" would be defined incorrectly, because it exists purely as an abstract legal concept. However, how would Author or Copy be defined incorrectly in a simple dictionary and ruin a jury trial? That makes absolutely no sense.
It's not a tricky spot at all. For example with music, Artists make more money now than they have in a long while. This is due, partially to piracy, to the downfall of physical CD purchases and the increase in live performances. The point is that the piracy has acted as free advertising for them.
Have some artists not done as well, perhaps due to piracy, most likely. But it's economics. If people like your music, they will pay you money to continue to make it. Whether they are giving you money for live performances, merchandise, or even donations, you'll get money. The people who want to hear more will support you.
If your music is crappy, more people will have heard of you and that means more people will have heard the music and less will buy it.
It's supply and demand. The songs have an infinite supply but merchandise, live performances, and experiences do not. The songs have become the free advertising that lead the consumers to the other things. The situation for movies has become similar.
Slashdot Mirror
Who's to say whether their decision was good or not? Certainly not you or me. "Making a good decision" is a matter of personal opinion. Especially in the case of a transsexual individual, usually the gender reassignment is the only thing that prevents them from drowning in depression and eventually committing suicide. Having the surgery provides them the ability to be a happy and productive human being.
Try again.
A single article, written by a single man, using his "observations" does not make a scientific study. Until otherwise shown, it makes more sense that the millions of people who are able to live their lives happily as a result of having this surgery speaks for itself.
I would not want someone who had an arm or leg electively amputated in the military either.
If they are physically capable (due to a prosthetic limb) of performing their duties and mentally capable of following orders. Then why not? Should we disallow anyone who has ever had any elective surgery? Should we disallow only those who have had elective plastic surgery? How is it different to have a limb amputated electively than to have a breast reduction? Or for a guy who has had some sort of penis enlargement surgery? Or any other cosmetic surgery? The only difference I can see is a social stigma.
Here's a twist. Heterosexual males are responsible for the vast majority of harassment and rape in the military. Since being a rapist is a very clear sign of mental disturbance, why are all heterosexual males allowed to serve in the military?
Here's a better question, why do you refuse to answer my questions? Why would you not want a transsexual serving in the military under as their target gender? Hell, why wouldn't you want someone who had an elective amputation to serve in the military?
But those apps they write for thousands of variations of computers, really, really suck for performance and battery life and often in the UI because it is not tailored to the device.
So your claim is that you can't write a high-performance low-power application for a computer that will run on thousands of hardware variations? I call bullshit. In addition, putting a custom skin on the OS home screen and a couple of the applications doesn't prevent anything UI oriented with a developer's application. Android provides ways of defining the layout for multiple situations regarding screen size, device orientation, resolution, etc. Just like you can do on a desktop, and they don't take extra performance or battery life in order to have these options available, the OS knows it's parameters via API calls and uses the appropriately defined UI.
the fact that those apps suck on computers isn't a big deal in most cases because computers are built with excessive resources to compensate.
Again, bullshit. Excessive resources doesn't compensate for a sucky application. It might compensate for a poorly written application that performs horribly but that's not a question of fragmentation or compatibility that's a question of being a good developer. Again, dealing with the different hardware configurations does NOT take extra performance or battery life, it's just calling APIs and knowing how to develop.
The UI component is more important because there is just one interface per device and it is not standardized.
You're guaranteed a touch screen and a keyboard. The rest you can call APIs to find out whether the hardware is there or not for a camera or whatnot. Obviously if you want to write an application that requires the use of a camera, shockingly you can't use it on a device without a camera.
if an app sucks on a PC, it is a problem, even if most users don't understand that particular app or plugin is the problem. It just isn't a deal breaking problem that will cause them to buy a different type of computer, because the impact is mitigated by the hardware.
And if an app sucks on a smartphone, it is a problem and most users will just uninstall the app. They won't buy a different smartphone because a single app misbehaved, they'll find a different app to serve the same purpose because there's almost always another app.
Google is building profilers that let advanced users figure out which apps are a problem. Apple and MS are requiring specific frameworks and vetting apps for performance. Clearly it is a problem, one that doesn't go away because it is also a minor problem on desktop machines.
This has absolutely nothing to do with fragmentation. All computers, from laptops to desktops to smartphones have limited resources and you want to performance check your application on the device obviously. On a laptop or desktop or netbook you have a multitude of different processors, graphics cards, sound cards, amounts of ram, etc. On an Android phone you have a few different processors and a few different graphics chips and some varying amounts of ram. On a laptop or desktop or netbook you have widely varying screen sizes and resolutions just like a smartphone. You have widely varying UI set ups just like a smartphone. This problem is not unique to Android, nor is it worse on Android phones than on a desktop, laptop, or a netbook running windows or some variation of linux. If developers can, without fail and without a problem, develop high-performance low-battery applications on those systems, then they can do it on Android. Low-and-behold many, VERY MANY, do. Look at applications like Angry Birds, it's a graphically well done game that runs on most (if not all, i don't know for sure) Android phones without sucking the battery dry. TweetDeck put out a chart showing that with over 200 "identifiers" of versions of android (most of which were nearly identic
In general, people cannot be trusted, because of personal biases, motivation, or simple ignorance.
If we can trust jurors to decide whether a man lives or dies, then we can trust them to use a dictionary.
You're right, I can complain about the $99/yr cost. There is absolutely no reason why I should have to pay an additional $99/year just to install what i want on a device I own.
That's actually exactly how it works. Android has API calls that handle it all. The only "worry" that you can legitimately have is performance on different hardware and the availability of certain features. Availability is handled by the ability to query whether something exists, and performance depends on your application and can be tested (mostly) using AVD's. You might want to test a small variety of phones (pick one with the lowest feature set you want to support, the highest and maybe 1 or 2 in the middle).
No one is proposing that we all move to consoles for the laptop/desktop market... but you're conflating that market with the mobile market where there are different needs and limitations.
Just because there are different needs and limitations doesn't remove the analogy. On a desktop or laptop you have all the same differences: different hardware, monitor, resolution, mouse/touchpad/trackball, joystick or no joystick, discrete or onboard graphics, discrete or onboard audio, drivers out the wazoo, varying amounts of ram, cpu, and disk space, built in camera or USB connected, or no camera at all, etc. etc. etc. Just because the environment's needs are different doesn't eliminate the fact that it's a similar situation. You have a system with a large amount of variation in the type and amount of hardware and specs. If developers can write applications for windows and linux that successfully run on hundreds if not thousands of variations of hardware for desktops, laptops, netbooks, etc. Then developers can write applications for Android. This type of variation is new in the mobile space which is the only reason why it keeps getting this much attention, it's not a new development for software developers and should stop being treated as such. It's just simply FUD.
Android has no more fragmentation on cell phones than windows has on desktops.
If you've showered with someone for your entire career in the military. Then knowing they are gay should not change anything. If you've showered without any problems with an individual and the only difference now is you know he is gay, then yes, it is homophobic to suddenly now have a problem.
Someone else in the thread mentioned it is rare nowadays for group showers in the military, there are usually individual stalls. Given that situation, your argument falls apart. The only argument you have made is that it might make group showers that are mostly non-existent awkward and uncomfortable. The fact that you are changing a policy does not in and of itself cause a distraction. Especially something like repealing DADT which should have no distraction except for some people being surprised to learn that their buddy is gay. Some people will choose to continue to keep it secret, others will have no problem letting people know once they are sure they won't be discharged for it.
I doubt people will go around skipping shouting "I'm gay! I'm gay!" But when "the guys" pal around talking about their significant others, now the guy who is gay would be able to join the conversation truthfully if they are so inclined. If anything, it should relieve distractions.
They do have counseling. A lot of counseling. A helluva lot of counseling. In fact, most doctors (I say most because some are unscrupulous enough to allow this) won't allow someone to have the gender reassignment surgery without having spent years living as the target gender complete with hormone therapy. In addition, that isn't started until it's been determined that they are mentally stable enough to make this decision for themselves and have not rushed into it. There are many who start down the path of this idea, and then decide not to or are disallowed by their doctor due to mitigating factors. It's not like you can walk into a hospital and demand gender reassignment surgery.
This is one of many things, where counseling just doesn't cut it. Science doesn't yet know what causes the gender identity problems, but most agree that it is a chemical issue within the brain among other things. Counseling doesn't fix that. Obviously for you, this is a hard concept to grasp and I understand that. It's not exactly a socially accepted way to live yet. There's many societal stigmas involved with gender reassignment.
You view gender reassignment as no different than elective amputation. Is not all plastic surgery the same as that? Whether you're having liposuction, a tummy tuck, breast enlargement/reduction, nosejob, etc. All of those are no different than an elective amputation in my eyes. Yet, gender reassignment is very different. For all of those you can go in and if you have enough money, they'll willingly perform the operation for you. Most doctors (again, because some are unscrupulous enough to do it) will not allow it without the counseling and other parts that come along with it.
You're free to believe what you like. You still have not responded to the topic of a transsexual individual in the military. I can only assume that you have no legitimate rebuttal. Otherwise, I'd be interested to know your view. What is the problem with a Male-to-Female transsexual or a Female-to-Male transsexual in the military, wearing the uniform and generally behaving as a normal member of the target gender?
Perhaps you should do some studying as well. There are several theories behind the biological causes of gender identity disorder, but no universally accepted one. Generally all of those physical and mental characteristics are caused by various hormones or lack thereof. Thus, while a gender reassignment operation is not entirely perfect, nor is it faultless, it provides what the person needs. That their biological sexual characteristics match the chemically determined gender in their mind.
Yes, man and woman are what we use to refer to males and females based on biological sex. This is not the problem and has very little to do with gender, which is a social construct. When someone has a baby boy, they generally paint the room blue and buy toy trucks and little sporting equipment, things society has associated with males. By contrast, when someone has a baby girl they generally paint the room pink and buy them dolls, dresses, etc. things that society has associated with females.
The idea that women desire to cook, play with dolls, go shopping, etc. is a gender identity that is formed by society. By the same token, the idea that males should all focus on things like cars and sports, is also a gender identity formed by society. It's why people look strangely at a young boy who likes to play with dolls or call a girl who likes sports a "tomboy". It's why people generally frown upon males wearing dresses.
Biological science has reached the point where combinations of physical surgery and hormone therapy effectively does change the biological sex of an individual, even to the point where they can physically have sex properly as the desired sex. It's obviously not perfect, but it is enough that it solves the problem for these individuals.
Those who surgically make themselves appear to be female and those who surgically make themselves to appear to be male have a medical need for the surgery as much as someone else who needs any kind of treatment for their mental health. These are individuals who take hormone therapy and live as the opposite sex for a long time before actually having the operation. You may frown upon it or not understand it, but it is very real. They haven't been "led to believe", they have been informed. Most gender reassignment surgeries result in an outward appearance that is indistinguishable from someone who has been born of that sex, save maybe for a couple scars. So effectively, there is no difference.
Getting back to the topic at hand, you have not responded to my answer as to why they should be allowed to serve in the military. As long as they are capable of following orders, getting through basic training, and carrying out their duties, why should they not be allowed to serve? If they find a guy who can bench press 400lbs, run a mile in under 4 minutes, is a marksmen with a gun, and is completely willing and able to follow orders, should they not allow him to enlist because he was original born female? If he had a sex reassignment surgery and then trained for years to be in the military, why should he not be allowed in?
How is a desire to have a legal, ethical, and medically approved surgery "mutilating their body"? Does this mean that anyone who has plastic surgery of any kind is also "mutilating" their body?
Many people who serve in the military are "mentally disturbed" in various ways. The question is not whether someone who is mentally disturbed be allowed in the armed forces, the question is whether or not this causes a problem for the individual to follow orders and be capable of meeting all the requirements necessary to serve. There are plenty of sociopaths, anti-social, borderline, etc. in the military. As long as these do not prevent them in any way from carrying out their tasks, performing the duties assigned to them, and do not present a danger to others, they are allowed to serve, usually without even knowing they have these disorders, or caring.
That said, the only argument you can make is that transgendered falls under the problem of "gender identity disorder" where one's perception of their gender is at odds with their biological sex. Note, transgendered is not always about sexuality, but it is always about gender identity. Granted we're only talking about a section of people who are transgendered, the ones who desire to have a sex change. Not all transgendered individuals desire this. However, how is a male-to-female transexual, after the operation, different from someone who was born female? With the exception of the ability to become pregnant. Sure there is a social stigma attached but otherwise there is no difference. As long as they are able to follow orders and serve, why shouldn't they be allowed to?
And before anybody comments, that in Assange's case, they are trumped up charges by the CIA or some government, please don't. The charges against him were filed before his current leaks which are pissing off many a government, particularly the US. Besides, do you really think if the CIA was clairvoyant, they wouldn't use this ability on something more important like Iraq or Afghanistan?
The charges were filed just after the release of the Iraq war documents from Wikileaks, and were dismissed due to lack of evidence. They then came back to the forefront of media and everywhere with no new evidence just after the cable dump. Regardless whether you believe that it is a political attack or not, or whether you believe he is guilty or not, you have to admit it is a very large coincidence that the charges only showed up after he pissed off the US government, twice.
That said, they could be just taking advantage of a situation that presented itself. It is really his word against theirs, however the only evidence that does exist is against them considering that one doesn't usually throw a party for their rapist after the rape occurred. They also didn't come forward until they talked to each other. The likely scenario, that I saw after the charges were originally filed, is that they had gone to the police in Sweden for advice on if there was some way to force him to take an STD test. Apparently he had convinced them both on separate occasions to have sex without a condom. When they learned of each other they had asked him to take a test and he refused. In Sweden you are allowed to ask "advice" from Police to avoid the situation of "filing a false report" that can happen. Supposedly an enterprising DA convinced Sexual misconduct charges to be had (note, not rape. Sexual misconduct) as a vehicle for forcing him to take a test.
Of course the validity of that is in question, but it was claimed to be from a copy of the police report filed with the original charges. *Shrug* The point is that it's a he-said she-said case.
Can you please cite where this information that he has posted resulted in any deaths? Considering that the pentagon has many more resources than you do and could not find a single instance of someone dying as a result of the information leaked, I doubt that you could cite one.
Yes, I did read the post. I was making the point that I disagree with his statement of being unrelated, while simultaneously explaining how the relatedness is thin enough that it's easy to see how they are unrelated since they are related only by virtue of both being about sexuality. At the same time I was responding to the original post on the thread regarding the statement about lawsuits.
Are you really being so pedantic that you think that my post was only tangentially related to yours and thus I should have replied to the post you replied to rather than yours? Wait....of course you are, this is slashdot.
Ugh.
They are related but not the same. They are related simply because it has to do with the sexuality and gender identity of the person. In fact, most of the groups for "gay rights" are in fact variations of "gay, lesbian, straight, bisexual, transgendered and transexual" rights groups.
Also, considering that in order to get a sex change, it is required to live as the opposite sex for a long time. I welcome the first lawsuit of a transgendered person to live in the barracks of their target gender, and hope the lawsuit isn't required to get them to be allowed.
You're completely right, the time and effort should have been put into other things. However the criticism is not that DADT should have just been left alone, the criticism is to blast every single one of the people who made it take so long.
DADT was a very important civil rights issue. The answer to controversy is not to drop it and move on (like most politicians do) but to smack down everyone who creates that controversy.
How is repealing DADT a "distraction to front line troops" unless those troops are homophobic to begin with?
This!
I think your sarcasm detector is on the fritz =P Need some calibration?
Pay-As-You-Go internet is very bad for google. It is also very good for any ISPs who set up competing products to google's products. It's the net neutrality nightmare scenario. ISP charges $/MB for using google's service and nothing to use the ISPs service. This is part of the "net neutrality" proposal that the FCC will be voting on which is really not anything like net neutrality at all.
It disgusts me.
When you create a work for hire, you are the author. The person who paid you holds the copyright. Being the author and having the copyright are not the same thing. If you create a work, you are the author/artist, regardless of the circumstances. You just may not hold the copyright.
Create a painting is a copy? That only makes sense if the painting you've created is a copy of another painting, otherwise it is a original work or a derivative work.
Take a photo? That depends on what it is a photo of. If I take a photo of my cat, what is that a copy of? It's definitely not a copy of my cat. If I take a photo of a live performance by a band, what it is a copy of? It's definitely not a copy of the band or of their music.
Record yourself playing an original musical composition? That's not a copy, that's an original. It's not a copy of the sheet music, it's not a copy of some other music because it's an original composition. (Assuming you are the one who composed it of course.) Now, if you record yourself performing someone else's original musical composition, that is a copy. And it's kind of obvious.
Definition: Copy: noun - "an imitation, reproduction, or transcript of an original: a copy of a famous painting." there are other definitions obviously, due to context. Like when dealing with the text of something to be published. Anyways, that seems to be a very valid and correct definition of a copy.
Definition: Author: noun - "the maker of anything; creator; originator: the author of a new tax plan." or "a person who writes a novel, poem, essay, etc.; the composer of a literary work, as distinguished from a compiler, translator, editor, or copyist." That also seems to be very valid. If I'm a programmer and I create a program, I am the author. The company I work for owns the product, the copyright, etc. but I am still the author.
So, no. Those examples help illustrate my point, not your problem.
As was said in another thread. "Mainstream" porn is being outdone by amateur porn on the internet. It's a case of the larger companies having to compete with smaller operations. Considering the studies that have been done for music, I'd be curious what a study on the income to porn studios is like nowadays and how piracy has changed it. Consider the movement from selling videos and magazines individually to the "buffet" style online subscription model that a lot of sites of moved to. The casual porn viewer isn't worth much to them, it's the avid watchers and collectors that are. Therefore, sites like redtube.com and youporn or whatever become popular with the casual watchers and the more avid ones pay for "premium" subscriptions to get more. Seems like a very nice system that works. Just like movies, the floating pirated versions serve as a hook and free advertising for those subscription services, special editions, the dvd's themselves. People will purchase a porn DVD simply to support a studio (just like they would for a movie). Or maybe they would just donate directly to the studio so they aren't funding the distributer, just the studio itself. If they so choose.
I can understand the logic behind saying "Fair Use" would be defined incorrectly, because it exists purely as an abstract legal concept. However, how would Author or Copy be defined incorrectly in a simple dictionary and ruin a jury trial? That makes absolutely no sense.
It's not a tricky spot at all. For example with music, Artists make more money now than they have in a long while. This is due, partially to piracy, to the downfall of physical CD purchases and the increase in live performances. The point is that the piracy has acted as free advertising for them.
Have some artists not done as well, perhaps due to piracy, most likely. But it's economics. If people like your music, they will pay you money to continue to make it. Whether they are giving you money for live performances, merchandise, or even donations, you'll get money. The people who want to hear more will support you.
If your music is crappy, more people will have heard of you and that means more people will have heard the music and less will buy it.
It's supply and demand. The songs have an infinite supply but merchandise, live performances, and experiences do not. The songs have become the free advertising that lead the consumers to the other things. The situation for movies has become similar.