It's funny - a lot of people have slagged pudge (including moi) on various issues such as politics and religion, but don't give him credit for not abusing the system. I wouldn't worry about slashdot admins looking through logs to track down posters unless there's a legal issue involved. The more real risk, as you pointed out, is other posters, and they don't have the all the information to make the connection. They'd probably get it wrong and start accusing each other and... well, you'd be able to sell tickets. Especially since at least a few of them would pretend it was true "for the LULZ",
It's easier now than it was, but I don't know if it will ever be seen by the general public as "no big deal." A lot depends on individual interactions. If they see you're at ease with yourself, then they're more likely to be accepting, even if there are incongruities. As an example, we'll always see fund-raisers for cancer and heart disease, but I don't see the public ever going for a fund-raiser for people who need help with gender reassignment or all the other concomitant "stuff" that goes along with it.
Still... that might be a way to change a few ignorant people's minds (I'm thinking of two in particular, nobody on slashdot, who both trivialize and don't "get it"). Maybe I should give it some thought. Oops, make it 4 or 5. No, actually, now that I think of it it's more like 10... shoot, make that 15. Okay, I'm going to stop counting - it's too depressing:-) (the smiley is because, while it is depressing and disappointing, I refuse to buy into their views.)
I would have to agree with the poster who suggested you get into contact with someone locally, just to talk. It doesn't have to be a health-care professional, and it doesn't have to cost anything (I know how hard things are financially in this economy). There are community-based services, and they have to keep things confidential or they will lose both their funding and their credibility, never mind the lawsuits.
To take Churchill out of context - "Jaw, jaw is better than war, war." Finding someone to talk to is a lot better than being constantly at war with yourself.
You could do that, but some senders will want to send it to the business name - a name mismatch is one of the warnings of a scam. Also, if you do too many transactions, it's going to be obvious you're running a business. But for starting out, if you're running your own website, and the whois information matches.
One note - NEVER use a privacy service for a domain registration - one of these days, we're going to have a web blocking service that will filter out web sites that aren't up front about who runs them, so best to be ready now. Besides, if someone wants to drop in and give you money, why make it hard for them? Legit mail-order operations almost always list their physical address because those walk-in orders make a nice source of extra revenue for things like pizza for workers who have to do overtime.
Send or receive money anytime, anywhere!
With the convenience of the Interac Email Money Transfer service and our EasyWeb Internet banking, it's faster and easier than ever to send or receive money.
A fast and easy way to send and receive money
Now you can send money directly from your business bank account to anyone with an email address and an account at a Canadian financial institution.1 And your customers can send money to you just as easily!
It's convenient.
No exchange of bank account numbers is required: just the name and email address of the business or person receiving the money.
It's fast.
An email message tells the recipients that their money is available. Then they collect the money through online banking and the transfer takes place instantly!
It's secure.
The transfer takes place with the same top level of security and confidentiality as every other EasyWeb banking transaction.
And it's cost-effective too! Sending costs only $1.502 per transaction and receiving payment is FREE.
Still have questions? Try our FAQs to find the answer or call 1-800-987-3506 for assistance.
Not yet registered for EasyWeb? No problem. Simply visit any TD Canada Trust branch to have EasyWeb access connected to your Small Business Banking Access Card.
You know, maybe you might want to try doing your own research for a change.
You said that non-competes were barred under California law. I showed that this is not the case. The statues say otherwise, and HP has the weight of 2 different constitutions to require that California enforce the statute.
I also showed how the statute that you claim bars non-competes has an exception, section 16600, and that it was under this exception that HP listed one of their causes of action.
So, I've demonstrated that your initial premise, that non-competes are barred under California law, is neither true nor applicable in this case. Why can't you accept that HP has some pretty good lawyers, that California has an exception that speaks to the issue, and that the courts will examine it in due course, possibly including the Supremes because both the stakes and the legal questions may well warrant it?
Your premise that non-competes are barred was struck down. Shouldn't that indicate that maybe you are wrong on these other points as well?
Or you might want to think about the real reason for all this. HP is now worth more than Oracle, and this p*sses Ellison off. Ellison has made a series of mis-steps since acquiring Sun, and he needs to do something (*anything*) to restore confidence. Oracle needs to really push the Sun x86 server line - fast - because Sparc is dying, and HP is the # 1 server vendor in the world. If people have to switch from Sparc, Sun x86 is not their natural choice, since they probably already have HP kit, so HP is poised to literally turn out the lights on Sun servers over the rest of the decade.
Couple that with the loss of all the JaveME (Mobile Edition) license fees (and the google lawsuit), and the pattern is pretty clear - Oracle blundered in buying Sun. They have no strategy, and they need one, which is why they hired Hurd. However, this competes directly with HP. Hence the lawsuit in an attempt to shore up confidence among customers and the stock price.
In other words, the stuff that was making Sun money, and that formed the financial rationale for the deal, is either already almost tapped out (JavaME licensing fees to the manufacturers) or on the road to oblvion (servers). OpenOffice? An expense, not a profit center. MySQL? No advantage owning the name - the support contracts are there (or not) irrespective of who owns it, and the "halo effect" is now more than reversed with the android lawsuit. In fact, what it has done is boosted interest in both PostgreSQL and MariaDB, as well as current and future competitors to Java.
Ellison pissed away $7.4 billion. Worse, he did it in a very public fashion, so that the true cost is higher. IBM is probably *so* happy they didn't buy Sun.
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your analysis - just the "as far as possible". Some people will give a whole new meaning to the phrase. I'm still waiting for some "genius" to create individual classes for each letter of the alphabet - but it wouldn't surprise me if someone already tried that, and it got incorporated as a "feature" in some "enterprisey" thingee:-)
If you find it confusing, can you imagine how confusing it is to us trying to sort it out in our own minds in a society that really hasn't come to grips with it? It's one of the reasons why, unaddressed, people will mutilate or even kill Society and the system of logic you've been taught both say you're the a particular gender, and when you look in a mirror, or at your body, something's not right. But there's so much pressure not to acknowledge this, to talk about it, to try to "work around it", to "man up" (now that's one concept that's doomed from the start), to deny it rather than admit it.
Still, it leaks out to others in various ways. Growing up, I was the target of all the local bullies, but probably the worst bully was my best friend, who turning on me for no reason, harassing me for months, then beating me up in the schoolyard after class in front of everyone. The girls finally stepped in and stopped it. Then you have the dynamics in the family, which I won't go into here, except to say that fathers tend to punish what they see as a "sissy".
So you go through life developing a very good cover, because you've literally had it beaten into you that otherwise, there will be painful consequences. You learn to blend in, you learn to mimic, even to exaggerate, your biological gender... and that just leads to even more inner conflict. In the wee still hours of the night, or at random times during the day, you see what you're doing to yourself, you know you're a traitor to who you really are, but what to do? And of course, since you really aren't that person, you can't express those parts of your personality that show the real you. You can be nice to someone, but not too nice - that might give things away. You can be upset - but not too upset, or you'll look like a sissy. Or you can express anger as a guy would, and then afterward think "This is sooo f*ed up. I don't want to do this. I hate it! I don't want to be angry at this person - I just want them to understand that they really hurt me." But that's not "gender-appropriate." And neither is getting teary-eyed during certain scenes in a movie. Or not being able to watch stuff like Silence of the Lambs because just the thought makes my skin crawl. Or trying not to have a good cry, even though sometimes that's the only thing that works.
Eventually what happens is the inevitable - it becomes too much to sustain, and the prospect of the rest of you life like that is too bleak to accept. You've done everything to try to conform, you've squished it down into a little box in a far-away locked up area of your mind, thrown away the key, walled it off, and yet, like an Edger Allen Poe story, you can still hear it. You can still see it. It's you.
It's hard for people who haven't gone through it to relate, and that's understandable. Words really cannot capture that sinking chest-clenching fear and despair of having to continue to live like that. Being so up-tight about it that you don't even dare hug anyone because it might be seen as gender-inappropriate. That's not a healthy way to live. That's why we transition, why seek gender reassignment, and why it really isn't appropriate to refer to a woman with a "gender-challenged past" (that's one way to look at it) as a guy, and what the original poster was trying to say.
We live in a society that is supposed to value who you are, not what you are. That's why it's more appropriate to refer to a transsexual in their current gender, even when referring to pre-transition events. The mind never changed. If the person is a woman now, it's because she was always, as a person and a human being, a woman.
I would like to let you know I am very impressed by the ease you talk about this subject, and would like to thank you for this interesting and enlightening conversation(s). I learned a lot of new things.
I have a business. Can I receive Interac Email Money Transfer?
Some of our participating financial institutions have enabled the Interac Email Money Transfer service for their small business online banking customers. If you bank online at one of these institutions, you can send transfers to people or other small businesses; and you can deposit transfers from other people or other small businesses.
Note, however, that small business customers can only deposit transfers if they bank online at one of the participating financial institutions that has enabled Interac Email Money Transfer service for small businesses.
The US needs to get rid of their various walled gardens.
or put the other way around, I consider it a possibility that a lot of those 12% of murders committed by women were committed without a man present
A point to note - the statistics of murder involving a man and a woman all require that a man be present:-) The stats I am referring to are strictly for murders where the aggressor and victim are opposite sexes.
We are only guessing as to why there are more men in the graph...
There are more men on the "men who killed women or women who killed men" graph because more men have been convicted of killing women than vice versa. That's what the statistic tracks. It is what it is, and when it clearly shows that women are the majority of victims, it means something. But let's look further. 90% of ALL inmates are male. That's something that cannot be brushed aside, or a statistical fluke. Men are more likely to engage in criminal behaviour. Why is irrelevant to the reality, which is that more than 1% of all American males are currently sitting in a jail cell. That's a serious eye-opener, and holds serious implications for the future of the American economy. Right now, warehousing prisoners is a "job growth" area. That's creating the worst types of incentives for "growth."
You may be right that it's mostly men limiting men at this point, I agree that men in general have not awoken to this realization. It's like I said: the sexual revolution for men has not even started! The transformation and empowerment of women with the rise of feminism is what needs to happen in a way for men. Most men feel obligated to live their life in a very narrow culturally accepted stereotype of a man. Slowly more and more men fight free from this, but resistance is high.
We don't need a "men's liberation movement". A large part of women's lib was about ending the legal restraints against women - for example, requiring that their husband or a male relative co-sign for a bank account or to administer an estate. Those legal restraints impeded women from having control of their own money. Money is power, so in a relationship, the man, thanks to the laws and customs of the time, had the power. This "women as chattels" view was further perpetuated in law by legalizing violence against wives - a man could not be charged with raping his wife. Consent wasn't required. It was his "right."
Contrast that with the situation today. Women aren't in sole control of men's finances. Rape is still mostly a crime committed by men, against both men and women. It's not like women have some legal right to rape men, and men need to be "liberated." Heck, in the cases where men are sexually assaulted by women, they're mocked by other men - "how can I sign up to be 'raped' by a woman?" Women listening to the same situation don't make fun of it. We've all either been raped or know someone close to us who's been raped. That's not surprising when you know that 25% of all women are victims of sexual assault. To put it in perspective, next time you're in a public place, try to imagine every 4th woman you see having been raped. Now throw in stalking, etc. It kind of boggles the mind, which is one reason it's not discussed much, even amongst women. I remember one conversation where one woman flat-out refused to believe that it was so common - "I don;t know anyone who was raped." Her best friend said "Yes, you do. I don't talk about it because I'm ashamed." And 25% is the lower bounds - it may be much higher - even 50%. Fortunately, the stigma is disappearing as we learn to name it and shame it - that it's the perps, not the victims, who are shameful.
But why did it take so long for something that is so logical as not blaming the woman for being raped? It wasn't because women wanted to be sexually assaulted (despite mens' claims that "she really wanted it" or "she's a c***tease so she deserved it", or "she was dressed for it" or "it'll straighten her out"), but
If you're going to troll, at least try to do it with some half-decent material. The very beginning of the Metro decision states the grounds for denial were not that non-competes are invalid, but that "We affirm and hold that the clauses are unenforceable absent evidence that Metro possesses a protectible trade secret".
HP has protectible trade secrets. They've named 2 of them their FY2010 and FY2011 plans.
The judgment affirms that the clauses are enforceable against trade secret information.
Section 16600 has specifically been held to invalidate employment contracts which prohibit an employee from working for a competitor when the employment has terminated, unless necessary to protect the employer's trade secrets. (Muggill v. Reuben H. Donnelley Corp. (1965) 62 Cal.2d 239, 242 [42 Cal.Rptr. 107, 398 P.2d 147, 18 A.L.R.3d 1241].) The corollary to this proposition is that competitors may solicit another's employees if they do not use unlawful means or engage in acts of unfair competition
Hiring Hurd meets both the bars - the injunction is necessary to protect HPs trade secrets, and hiring Hurd is an act of unfair competition since he is in possession of those trade secrets.
So, either come up with some material that supports your claims or admit that non-competes are valid in certain circumstances, as the California courts have held.
Okay, we'll start with the Wiki article. It depends on the style the author chooses to adopt. Some refer to a woman's past life using the former gender, some use the current gender throughout. Since the person who the article is about has no say in the matter (this is Wikipedia policy - you can't edit an article about yourself), it really doesn't say anything about how the woman sees herself and her past life.
As to what to call a woman - you have to first understand that someone only accepts that they have to transition because they are not, in their own eyes, their biological sex. If someone has gotten to the point where they are presenting as a woman in public, referring to them as Madame instead of Sir is the right thing to do. Anything else is just rubbing salt into a nasty wound.
But if in doubt, just ask. She won't bite your head off, if you aren't rude about it. In other words, don't go "So, do we still call you Mr?" That's just mean. Many names have a gender bias - they're more common for one sex. If they used to be known as Mark, and they now ask to be called Marsha, that should tell you enough. In other cases, such as an androgynous name, if you know that they're transitioning to being a woman, then again, use Madame or Miss.
In other words, use the target gender (the one they're aiming for:-). It's just the polite thing to do, and makes everyone's lives less complicated in the long run.
As to whether the English version of the wiki is hypocritical or PC - it's neither. Remember, she has no say in how the article was written. Here's an example. Lynn is referred to throughout the article as "she". It does mention her being born a boy, and her transition, but really, if you read the article, it's a lot less confusing to the reader to do it all with one pronoun.
But this brings up another question - why should a person's previous medical history be germane? You don't see wikipedia articles mention when someone had their appendix removed or corrective eye surgery.
When it's normal you can talk about it freely, until that time the strong demand for PC-ness only indicates that it is controversial and not yet regarded as normal and equal to other things people are allowed to talk about...
Well, we're talking freely about it, aren't we? And I've certainly talked freely about it with family and friends, and neighbors who wanted to discuss my situation. Then again, I'm lucky - I have 2 big dogs to reassure and protect me. A lot of people can't be so open because of fear of retribution, either on the job or at home or school or in public. That's the unfortunate truth, and it has nothing to do with being politically correct, and everything to do with being actively discriminated against, bullied, assaulted, insulted, etc. Can you blame them for not discussing it so openly? We would all like nothing so much as a climate where we don't have to live in fear that "the other shoe will drop." That's the real 800-pound elephant - the fact that even today, transgenders of all sorts still have real concerns about safety.
It's true that it wasn't my choice to be "outed", but that's water under the bridge. I'm not going to cry about it:-)
it still implies that because men are more likely the killer females are more likely the victim, while the statistics I pointed to show that over 65 percent of the murders are a man killing another man. The fact is that men kill more, but the stereotype that women suffer disproportionately under the aggression of men isn't.
The vast majority of the time, it's the woman who is the victim.
Like the anecdote heard all too often of nightlife incidents involving groups of both males and females where the men are driven to defend the women, often cheered on by them, which sometimes results in one man killing a man from the other group.
Don't you think this says more about "drunks shouldn't have guns"? Being cheered on, even by 1,000 women, is not a rationale to kill someone. "But judge, I couldn't help myself. She made me do it - she was cheering me on." This wouldn't even work for a speeding ticket. If you want to look at the social and cultural aspects, look no further than your gun culture. The US has an out-of-control crime problem, which explains why it has more people in jail than any other country in the world. Anecdotes like the one you describe are a symptom of that. They also have absolutely nothing to do with the ratio between men killing women and women killing men, which is a separate statistic.
A second contributor is laws that encourage murder. The three-strikes law is one such really bad law. "If I get caught this is my 3rd strike, so I have nothing to lose by killing the b*tch." Laws that encourage the killing of witnesses to a crime are dumb. People who vote for politicians who cynically push for such laws are equally dumb. A culture that supports this sort of stupidity via the voting booth, the executive branch, and the courts, is going to be a violent culture, because now both "sides" need to escalate, and when you create a situation where people have nothing to lose, don't be so surprised when they act "rationally" by killing people who could send them to jail for life.
Feminism proved that a lot of presumed inherently female aspects are stereotypical, why is it so hard for people to understand the same applies to a lot of male gender roles?
People understand, which is why the "she cheered me on" defense doesn't work. However, just because "a lot of" aspects are stereotypical doesn't invalidate that there is a biological basis for much human behaviour. To say that it can be explained away by culture doesn't work - the differential murder rate between men killing women and women killing men, and the universally higher rates of men as killers, say otherwise. Both sexes have the same "fight or flight" mechanism, but men are by far more likely to fight.
But let's look at other stuff that isn't so violent, but reinforces typical stereotypes. How about shopping? I love shopping, even when I don't buy anything. Guys? They admit that most of them approach it like a military mission - go in, acquire the target, and get out. Why the difference? It can't be entirely cultural when so many different cultures share the same stereotypical behaviour. Another one - shoes. How many pair of shoes does the average man have? 3 Women? it depends on age
a female from ages 13-16 may own about 15 pair of shoes including sneakers.
And older woman 16-21, who perhaps has a job: 25-40 pairs
A mature woman 25-50, anywhere from 40-60 pair of shoes
I did NOT write that it has to go to a jury. I wrote that HP has the right under both the California and American Constitutions to demand that the section of the California Civil Code be applied. HP has asked for a jury trial, but they could have also asked for a bench trial. That is their privilege, same as Oracle. What is not their privilege, but their Constitutionally-guaranteed right, is enforcement of the California Civil Code. The law is applicable to potential disclosures. That's why it provides for a restraining order. Here's the entire text of the section of the law that HP cites:
3426.
a. Actual or threatened misappropriation may be enjoined.
Upon application to the court, an injunction shall be terminated when
the trade secret has ceased to exist, but the injunction may be
continued for an additional period of time in order to eliminate
commercial advantage that otherwise would be derived from the
misappropriation.
Is a non-compete sometimes valid in California? Absolutely!
Section 16600 has specifically been held to invalid employment contracts which
prohibit an employee from working for a competitor when the employment has
been terminated, unless necessary to protect the employer's trade secrets."
(Metro Traffic Control, Inc. v. Shadow Traffic Network(1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 853, 859.)
That's pretty straight-forward.
HP holds what appears to be an enforceable non-compete against Hurd
under California law, specifically section 3426.2a and the 16600 exception.
Whether Hurd's employment at Oracle represents a threatened disclosure
of trade secrets is a fact to be determined at trial.
Whether HP has a valid non-compete under the trade secret exception
to Section 16600 hinges on that to-be-determined fact, so the judge can't
toss the case without first having the trial.
The only way out of a trial is for Oracle to fire Hurd and pay HP some
blood money to walk away.
So, I'm still holding the Pair of Courts, the Pair of Legislatures, and the Pair of Constitutions, as well as the Queen of Trade Secret Protection and for the Trump the Non-Compete Exception. Oh yes, I also have the legal brief prepared by high-powered lawyers. You have... ummm.... nothing much?
What the heck, go fish:-) Maybe you'll get lucky this time.
Okay - now it's time to call a childish brat a childish brat, You've done it before, and you've been called out on it before. I figured I'd give you the benefit of the doubt for the sake of the others involved in the discussion, who may not be familiar with your particular brand of sub-juvenile stupidity, but once again, you prove you don't merit the least consideration and you're incapable of thinking like an adult.
There's a time and a place. This was neither, though I'm sure you enjoyed yourself, like usual. Why, I don't know, and frankly, I don't care. But hey, if it will make you happy, pretend this is written all in caps, and me being angry or upset, instead of just shaking my head at how someone can be so eager to show that their opinions are once again worthless:-)
Modularize as much as possible - compilers can glue the bits together better than your brain can rip them apart
I would disagree with this one. Like normalization, you can carry it to too far an extreme, even to constructing individual classes for every trivial operation, when they form a natural grouping, or could be better handled in a single function, no classes needed.
Classes as necessary, but not necessarily classes. Normalization as much as is natural in the context, and no further. People sometimes get carried away - I've certainly been guilty of it on at least 2 occasions:-)
California courts have not rejected it out of hand. One quote is not the same thing at all, especially since the law allows them to make their case on a case-by-case basis, which they will do here. The statute is still on the books, and HP has a Constitutional right under both the California and American constitutions to see that the law is enforced as written.
So unless the law has been repealed (it hasn't been) or the Constitution has been repealed at both the state and federal level (they hasn't been) or due process has been suspended in the civil court system (it hasn't been), HP is entirely within it's rights to demand that the courts enforce California law..
So I see your quote and raise you 2 Constitutions (state and fed), 2 legislative branches. (state and fed), and 2 executive branches (state and fed). I'm showing 3 pair to your single card.
YOu can keep arguing, but I'm already holding the biggest cards in the deck.
One of the things about IT is that you have less contact with the public, so it's safer if you're found out at any point - either prior to, or after transition. It's also easier for employers to accept you transitioning if you're stuck working with the same co-workers, as compared to, say, a sales job where you have to explain to all your clients that things are "going to be a little bit different".
All the jobs you named have greater public exposure, and thus greater risk of someone asking "whatever happened to...", even if they're kept out of the loop, and the more people you bring into the loop, the more chances for a negative reaction. You can be perfectly passable to the general public, and at ease in your gender, and then one day, it only takes one person who already has a fear of transgenders to make the connection and ruin your job and your self-confidence.
It;s not the same if, for example, someone makes a fuss because you're black or white or red or yellow. Most people haven't gone through years of messy scenes with friends or family because they "should change their skin colour".A parent's negative reaction to a child who identifies as female in order to "get them to man up" just doesn't work on so many levels. Unfortunately it's often only the beginning of a stream of physical abuse from schoolyard bullies and others, so it's no wonder that many transgendered women learn to put on a public persona that is so at odds with who we are.
It's not random trivia - we've known about the 2d:4d digit ratio in terms of testosterone exposure for more than a century. Basically, the more male children a woman has, the higher the testosterone level that the next fetus will be exposed to. On average, the further on in the male lineage you go in a generation, assuming the same mother (it doesn't have to be the same father), the longer the ring finger will be in relationship to earlier brothers.
As I said, it's not an absolute - there are variations. There are women with long ring fingers and men with short ring fingers who are quite happy the way they are. To say that the ratio applies universally is an over-simplification. It's just one more data point in unraveling a complex puzzle of how the genes in the fetus react to the uterine environment, and vice versa.
I *did* say to either get lessons or use your webcam to help you see what you're doing from another perspective. I didn't say to give up altogether. Unfortunately, for some reason, the word "lessons" got dropped. My mistake - I should have used preview, and I apologize for the misunderstanding.
Please read what I've written elsewhere. I am not personally offended by the Carlin quote. I don't believe the original poster used it out of any intent to belittle anyone, but because Carlin's most famous quote doesn't fit into slashdot's signature character limit. So certainly this is not about me being offended in any what, but about people's negative reactions to another woman pointing out - politely - that the quote, as it stands, in this context, is inappropriate. She did this after first making it clear that she too did not believe that the person used the quote out of malice.
Let's look again at the original signature:
Now, let's cut to the brass tacks.
"I know a transsexual guy whose only ambition is to eat, drink, and be Mary."
Could it be offensive to refer to a woman, either genetic or trans, as a man? I think it could be. You may want to ask around. Go up to a few women and address them as "Mr.", or a few men and address them as "Madame", and report back your results.:-)
Here's what she wrote:
You might not realize this, but your sig is hostile and transphobic, even if it is a quote by Carlin. It's inappropriate to refer to a trans woman as a 'transsexual guy'
She politely pointed out, while giving the benefit of the doubt, the truth - that misgendering someone is inappropriate.
Everything else has followed from that. Some people have taken umbrage when I've written that this stereotype is rude and crude and offensive to women, and yet they go into denial when I point out that statistics back up some stereotypes of men, such as that men don't do anywhere near their share of the housework (latest stats say women do 3x as much cleaning around the house, and 6x as much laundry), and that men are several times more likely to kill women than vice versa - and as another woman pointed out, that the stats for men killing transgenders is even worse.
And that is very much on topic to this particular thread - that some stereotypes are not based in fact, but are used to attack women, and other stereotypes reflect reality - that men do most of the violence in today's society, that transgendered women are even more at risk, that socially as well as financially, transgendered women face the double whammy of being discriminated against as women and as being transgendered.
But again - I was not personally offended. I'm an admirer of George Carlin's work. I "get it." However, I also think that in this venue, the original argument that it is offensive is valid, especially when you consider how many transgendered people are afraid to speak up here because they fear both being outed and being subjected to the same "transsexual guy" thing. All negative stereotypes need to be worked on. Women shouldn't be referred to as "transsexual guys", by anyone of either gender, and many men need to pick up their share of the housework and stop killing their wives and former girlfriends.
I remember one study back in the dead-tree days that, while it didn't explain this disproportionate tendency to kill, leads me to propose a simple theory. The study showed that while women are usually hit hardest during the initial breakup, we also get over it quicker. Men on the other hand, show the opposite, with higher levels of depression later on in the "grieving" process. I think this could be due to the way that the whole dating process works. The man is the one who usually "puts himself at risk of rejection" when asking a woman out, and the last thing anyone needs after a break-up is more rejections. So while the men trying to re-establish their lives will accumulate more rejections during the following months, the women get an ego boost every time they're asked out, without having to take that same risk of rejection. For women, this serves as a counterweight to the depression of a break-up and re-establishes self-esteem.
As a society, we need to give men the ability to sa
Let's see - I keep it in the cupboard under the sink right beside the toilet. I also make sure that when the roll gets anywhere near the end I replace it and put the partialy-used roll either on the back of the toilet, or on the counter. This way, I know nobody will be inconvenienced. I learned to do this when I was a kid - otherwise, a lot of times I'd walk into the bathroom to see the roll with one sheet on it.
My sister who has to deal with a hubby and 2 adult sons who consistently can't replace the toilet paper in either bathroom - in both cases, they're sitting right there beside the toilet in one of those "tube-type" thingies. I've walked into the bathroom and the roll is completely empty. Funny how, no matter how little toilet paper was on the roll, it was always "just enough" to "do the paperwork."
I'm not going to deny the other stereotype, though it is exaggerated a bit - obviously women do use more toilet paper, because there's more places to wipe. But not 97% more - especially after the guys have had an impromptu chili-eating contest. "Come look at this - you won't believe it!" No thanks. I've changed enough diapers, I pick up after my dogs - I get the picture.
Seriously though, I've compared notes with other women, and it's amazing how many men need only exactly what was left on the roll. Maybe it's related to the toilet-seat thing.
Speaking of the toilet-seat thing, on this I side with the men - the seat should be up. I've seen too many toilets in too many households where either the guy thinks it's long enough, or his aim good enough, (or if it's an adult, he's pissed enough), that he doesn't feel the need to lift the seat when he pees. So please, lift the seat before you pee, and leave it up so that when I go into the bathroom, I know that nobody's "dribbled" or "backspashed" or whatever. In return, I'll lift it when I'm finished, and at 2 a.m. I'll turn on the light and look before I sit, so you won't hear a splash followed by my screaming your name. Is that fair enough?
Thank you. On the stereotype thing, what can I say - government stats say that women still do 3x the housework as men. Cleaning the bathroom and doing the laundry are still "women's work." Yes, there's improvement, but it's still far from equal, and the bathroom has always been an area of conflict. It's also a great source of humour. Just look at Russel Peters' toilet paper routine. We laugh (both sexes) because we see ourselves in it.
If you look elsewhere in the thread, I make it clear that the dividing lines are not clear-cut - there are women who wouldn't dream of cleaning a toilet, and men who ask for directions without worrying about what someone might think. We're certainly not all stamped out of the same mold - or if we are, someone must have broken it and duct-taped it back together before it was my turn.
I don't know - maybe it's because I've had the unfortunate "privilege" of seeing it from both sides (sort of like an "under cover gender spy", I guess), that for me the differences are highlighted - and a source of raw material for a bit of both humour and social commentary. I've sat through I don't know how many conversations where the guys are all acting like little boys when a woman enters the room, and where women are evaluated for job reviews, not on their talents, but strictly by their looks - "Hire that one, she's hot." And sure enough, that's the one who gets hired. And that's just the surface. Guys married and with kids chasing after every woman they see, then talking about them like they were pieces of meat (whether they "scored" or not), openly saying that "that customer 'fits the gauge'" because they think they're sharing "just among the guys", speculating on whether the waitress would be good in bed or not, not realizing that she's now right behind them with their order. It's embarrassing. I know that not all guys can be like that, but so many of them (easily the majority) are so much of the time when they think there are no women around.
And I've experienced it from the other side, working as a receptionist, when male sales reps come in and most of them do "the scan" - they look at two things - boobs and ring finger. Same thing when I walk my dogs. Guys will cross the street a half-block away so that they can "casually" be on the same side of the street when our paths cross. After a few "accidental encounters" they'll talk, they'll try to find out if I'm single, what am I doing later on - it's so transparent. It's okay though, because it is a bit of an ego boost, though I will be the first to admit that I was really startled the first time it happened. And I'm certainly not complaining about having doors opened for me, or stuff being carried to the car by a store clerk. Or the freedom to wear a skirt when it's 100 degrees outside and guys are stuck wearing pants because "men with hairy legs in shorts is not suitable office attire". And I'm sure there are some men who wish they had complete freedom from neck-ties, even for the most serious occasions.
With all the hassles, there *have* to be a few counter-balancing points, right?
I guess what I'm trying to say is that, while we shouldn't depend on stereotypes to give us the "plain unvarnished truth", in some instances they do have a basis in current or past social customs or values, and, just by the law of averages, some of them are going to contain more than a kernel of truth. And that if we can't laugh at ourselves and our weaknesses, we're doomed.
That's why I've made it clear elsewhere in the comments that I don't think that the person who has the sig ever intended for it to offend people - that they probably used it because George Carlin was a great, incisive comic, and *his* signature line "The 7 words you can't say..." simply doesn't fit.
I also made it clear that I think Carlin's purpose, as with much of his material, was NOT to put down transpeople, but more a comment on society in general, and people's attitudes on what constitutes "funny." George works on more than one level. He also worked within a specific context. I think if we could ask him, he'd say "Yeh, I said it, and it's funny. It's funny because ******* people are ****** ***** who will laugh at anything. Maybe one of them will wake up and get a ******* clue and realize that I'm making fun of their ignorant ******* behaviour. Yeah, like that's going to happen in my ******* lifetime."
\
That being said, the original poster was right on the money - referring to a transgendered woman as a "transsexual guy" is offensive. Very offensive. That is *all* that they said. They didn't slag the whole quote, just that one word. If anyone used that on me, I certainly wouldn't be too pleased about it. It's wrong.
The original context where Carlin said it not this context, and what was social commentary there doesn't come across the same here; if it was a one-time post, it would have been ignored, but signatures, well, people sometimes pick them to say something representative, and in this context, it's understandably offensive to some. Context is important. Without context, we don't have information, just noise.
I can see the complications with living by the "I will take offense at people who take offense" creed. I would suggest, however, that some things are validly offensive in certain contexts. The context here is a tech site where many transpeople feel that they can participate with minimum risk. Referring to a transgendered woman ("Mary") as a guy in a signature file is a bit messed up.
Does it offend me at this point in time? No - because I doubt the poster ever even gave it a thought. However, if they then went on a long transphobic rant-fest, I'd change my opinion. Either way, though, the original poster was well within her rights to say that referring to a woman - either genetic or trans - as a guy, in this venue, is offensive.
If you're offended by that, I don't know what to say. I'm not going to say that you don't have the right to feel that way, just as I'm not going to say that the original poster doesn't have a right to use the signature of their choice. However, in this debate, I side with the woman who pointed out that referring to women as "guys" is offensive.
I'm intrigued by this comment, do you have any evidence for this or are you just speculating? I'm wondering why there would be a higher than average number of transgenders working in technical jobs like programming over any other say, office based job.
Compared to other office-based jobs, programming is more accessible to transgenders; this is certainly the case before transitioning, where most companies still want a woman working the reception desk. But more importantly, IT is more open to transsexuals than, say, construction or other male-dominated professions.
The computer you're using right now is only possible because of the work of this woman. Multi-player computer games owe much of their success to this woman. And what list would be complete without a rocket scientist?
My personal thoughts on the matter are that our attempts to reconcile our differences with our external life provide extra stimulus to the problem-solving area of the brain, even before we're aware that we are different at any conscious level. So we end up gravitating to fields that
(1) have problems that use those same problem-solving skills - for example, I *love* the challenge of debugging, whereas most programmers would rather write new code, and
(2) don't force us as rigidly into a gender model we don't fit in - it's okay for women to be programmers, but men "man" a jackhammer.
(3) if we're outed in an IT context, we're less likely to get the crap beaten out of us, and more likely to be treated fairly.
That last one is a big consideration. Ask any transgender (either m2f or f2m) and they'll probably have more than one story about being physically assaulted just because they were "different".
Or just look through the comments here. Idle isn't exactly known for being a popular slashdot feature, and yet this particular discussion... well, it speaks for itself, just like the women who have said that they can't post publicly because of fear says something.
The only reason I can is because I've gotten over my original mortification... but I certainly would rather that it hadn't come out. All any of us want is our lives. IT is a relatively safe area for us to build a life, so it's to be expected that you'll find transsexuals over-represented compared to other fields where the gender participation lines are much clearer.
Slashdot Mirror
It's easier now than it was, but I don't know if it will ever be seen by the general public as "no big deal." A lot depends on individual interactions. If they see you're at ease with yourself, then they're more likely to be accepting, even if there are incongruities. As an example, we'll always see fund-raisers for cancer and heart disease, but I don't see the public ever going for a fund-raiser for people who need help with gender reassignment or all the other concomitant "stuff" that goes along with it.
Still ... that might be a way to change a few ignorant people's minds (I'm thinking of two in particular, nobody on slashdot, who both trivialize and don't "get it"). Maybe I should give it some thought. Oops, make it 4 or 5. No, actually, now that I think of it it's more like 10 ... shoot, make that 15. Okay, I'm going to stop counting - it's too depressing :-) (the smiley is because, while it is depressing and disappointing, I refuse to buy into their views.)
I would have to agree with the poster who suggested you get into contact with someone locally, just to talk. It doesn't have to be a health-care professional, and it doesn't have to cost anything (I know how hard things are financially in this economy). There are community-based services, and they have to keep things confidential or they will lose both their funding and their credibility, never mind the lawsuits.
To take Churchill out of context - "Jaw, jaw is better than war, war." Finding someone to talk to is a lot better than being constantly at war with yourself.
One note - NEVER use a privacy service for a domain registration - one of these days, we're going to have a web blocking service that will filter out web sites that aren't up front about who runs them, so best to be ready now. Besides, if someone wants to drop in and give you money, why make it hard for them? Legit mail-order operations almost always list their physical address because those walk-in orders make a nice source of extra revenue for things like pizza for workers who have to do overtime.
You said that non-competes were barred under California law. I showed that this is not the case. The statues say otherwise, and HP has the weight of 2 different constitutions to require that California enforce the statute.
I also showed how the statute that you claim bars non-competes has an exception, section 16600, and that it was under this exception that HP listed one of their causes of action.
So, I've demonstrated that your initial premise, that non-competes are barred under California law, is neither true nor applicable in this case. Why can't you accept that HP has some pretty good lawyers, that California has an exception that speaks to the issue, and that the courts will examine it in due course, possibly including the Supremes because both the stakes and the legal questions may well warrant it?
Your premise that non-competes are barred was struck down. Shouldn't that indicate that maybe you are wrong on these other points as well?
Or you might want to think about the real reason for all this. HP is now worth more than Oracle, and this p*sses Ellison off. Ellison has made a series of mis-steps since acquiring Sun, and he needs to do something (*anything*) to restore confidence. Oracle needs to really push the Sun x86 server line - fast - because Sparc is dying, and HP is the # 1 server vendor in the world. If people have to switch from Sparc, Sun x86 is not their natural choice, since they probably already have HP kit, so HP is poised to literally turn out the lights on Sun servers over the rest of the decade.
Couple that with the loss of all the JaveME (Mobile Edition) license fees (and the google lawsuit), and the pattern is pretty clear - Oracle blundered in buying Sun. They have no strategy, and they need one, which is why they hired Hurd. However, this competes directly with HP. Hence the lawsuit in an attempt to shore up confidence among customers and the stock price.
In other words, the stuff that was making Sun money, and that formed the financial rationale for the deal, is either already almost tapped out (JavaME licensing fees to the manufacturers) or on the road to oblvion (servers). OpenOffice? An expense, not a profit center. MySQL? No advantage owning the name - the support contracts are there (or not) irrespective of who owns it, and the "halo effect" is now more than reversed with the android lawsuit. In fact, what it has done is boosted interest in both PostgreSQL and MariaDB, as well as current and future competitors to Java.
Ellison pissed away $7.4 billion. Worse, he did it in a very public fashion, so that the true cost is higher. IBM is probably *so* happy they didn't buy Sun.
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your analysis - just the "as far as possible". Some people will give a whole new meaning to the phrase. I'm still waiting for some "genius" to create individual classes for each letter of the alphabet - but it wouldn't surprise me if someone already tried that, and it got incorporated as a "feature" in some "enterprisey" thingee :-)
If you find it confusing, can you imagine how confusing it is to us trying to sort it out in our own minds in a society that really hasn't come to grips with it? It's one of the reasons why, unaddressed, people will mutilate or even kill Society and the system of logic you've been taught both say you're the a particular gender, and when you look in a mirror, or at your body, something's not right. But there's so much pressure not to acknowledge this, to talk about it, to try to "work around it", to "man up" (now that's one concept that's doomed from the start), to deny it rather than admit it.
Still, it leaks out to others in various ways. Growing up, I was the target of all the local bullies, but probably the worst bully was my best friend, who turning on me for no reason, harassing me for months, then beating me up in the schoolyard after class in front of everyone. The girls finally stepped in and stopped it. Then you have the dynamics in the family, which I won't go into here, except to say that fathers tend to punish what they see as a "sissy".
So you go through life developing a very good cover, because you've literally had it beaten into you that otherwise, there will be painful consequences. You learn to blend in, you learn to mimic, even to exaggerate, your biological gender ... and that just leads to even more inner conflict. In the wee still hours of the night, or at random times during the day, you see what you're doing to yourself, you know you're a traitor to who you really are, but what to do? And of course, since you really aren't that person, you can't express those parts of your personality that show the real you. You can be nice to someone, but not too nice - that might give things away. You can be upset - but not too upset, or you'll look like a sissy. Or you can express anger as a guy would, and then afterward think "This is sooo f*ed up. I don't want to do this. I hate it! I don't want to be angry at this person - I just want them to understand that they really hurt me." But that's not "gender-appropriate." And neither is getting teary-eyed during certain scenes in a movie. Or not being able to watch stuff like Silence of the Lambs because just the thought makes my skin crawl. Or trying not to have a good cry, even though sometimes that's the only thing that works.
Eventually what happens is the inevitable - it becomes too much to sustain, and the prospect of the rest of you life like that is too bleak to accept. You've done everything to try to conform, you've squished it down into a little box in a far-away locked up area of your mind, thrown away the key, walled it off, and yet, like an Edger Allen Poe story, you can still hear it. You can still see it. It's you.
It's hard for people who haven't gone through it to relate, and that's understandable. Words really cannot capture that sinking chest-clenching fear and despair of having to continue to live like that. Being so up-tight about it that you don't even dare hug anyone because it might be seen as gender-inappropriate. That's not a healthy way to live. That's why we transition, why seek gender reassignment, and why it really isn't appropriate to refer to a woman with a "gender-challenged past" (that's one way to look at it) as a guy, and what the original poster was trying to say.
We live in a society that is supposed to value who you are, not what you are. That's why it's more appropriate to refer to a transsexual in their current gender, even when referring to pre-transition events. The mind never changed. If the person is a woman now, it's because she was always, as a person and a human being, a woman.
Thank you. I always enjoy an intelligent con
I think Interac disagrees with you :-)
The US needs to get rid of their various walled gardens.
A point to note - the statistics of murder involving a man and a woman all require that a man be present :-) The stats I am referring to are strictly for murders where the aggressor and victim are opposite sexes.
There are more men on the "men who killed women or women who killed men" graph because more men have been convicted of killing women than vice versa. That's what the statistic tracks. It is what it is, and when it clearly shows that women are the majority of victims, it means something. But let's look further. 90% of ALL inmates are male. That's something that cannot be brushed aside, or a statistical fluke. Men are more likely to engage in criminal behaviour. Why is irrelevant to the reality, which is that more than 1% of all American males are currently sitting in a jail cell. That's a serious eye-opener, and holds serious implications for the future of the American economy. Right now, warehousing prisoners is a "job growth" area. That's creating the worst types of incentives for "growth."
We don't need a "men's liberation movement". A large part of women's lib was about ending the legal restraints against women - for example, requiring that their husband or a male relative co-sign for a bank account or to administer an estate. Those legal restraints impeded women from having control of their own money. Money is power, so in a relationship, the man, thanks to the laws and customs of the time, had the power. This "women as chattels" view was further perpetuated in law by legalizing violence against wives - a man could not be charged with raping his wife. Consent wasn't required. It was his "right."
Contrast that with the situation today. Women aren't in sole control of men's finances. Rape is still mostly a crime committed by men, against both men and women. It's not like women have some legal right to rape men, and men need to be "liberated." Heck, in the cases where men are sexually assaulted by women, they're mocked by other men - "how can I sign up to be 'raped' by a woman?" Women listening to the same situation don't make fun of it. We've all either been raped or know someone close to us who's been raped. That's not surprising when you know that 25% of all women are victims of sexual assault. To put it in perspective, next time you're in a public place, try to imagine every 4th woman you see having been raped. Now throw in stalking, etc. It kind of boggles the mind, which is one reason it's not discussed much, even amongst women. I remember one conversation where one woman flat-out refused to believe that it was so common - "I don;t know anyone who was raped." Her best friend said "Yes, you do. I don't talk about it because I'm ashamed." And 25% is the lower bounds - it may be much higher - even 50%. Fortunately, the stigma is disappearing as we learn to name it and shame it - that it's the perps, not the victims, who are shameful.
But why did it take so long for something that is so logical as not blaming the woman for being raped? It wasn't because women wanted to be sexually assaulted (despite mens' claims that "she really wanted it" or "she's a c***tease so she deserved it", or "she was dressed for it" or "it'll straighten her out"), but
HP has protectible trade secrets. They've named 2 of them their FY2010 and FY2011 plans.
The judgment affirms that the clauses are enforceable against trade secret information.
Hiring Hurd meets both the bars - the injunction is necessary to protect HPs trade secrets, and hiring Hurd is an act of unfair competition since he is in possession of those trade secrets.
So, either come up with some material that supports your claims or admit that non-competes are valid in certain circumstances, as the California courts have held.
As to what to call a woman - you have to first understand that someone only accepts that they have to transition because they are not, in their own eyes, their biological sex. If someone has gotten to the point where they are presenting as a woman in public, referring to them as Madame instead of Sir is the right thing to do. Anything else is just rubbing salt into a nasty wound.
But if in doubt, just ask. She won't bite your head off, if you aren't rude about it. In other words, don't go "So, do we still call you Mr?" That's just mean. Many names have a gender bias - they're more common for one sex. If they used to be known as Mark, and they now ask to be called Marsha, that should tell you enough. In other cases, such as an androgynous name, if you know that they're transitioning to being a woman, then again, use Madame or Miss.
In other words, use the target gender (the one they're aiming for :-). It's just the polite thing to do, and makes everyone's lives less complicated in the long run.
As to whether the English version of the wiki is hypocritical or PC - it's neither. Remember, she has no say in how the article was written. Here's an example. Lynn is referred to throughout the article as "she". It does mention her being born a boy, and her transition, but really, if you read the article, it's a lot less confusing to the reader to do it all with one pronoun.
But this brings up another question - why should a person's previous medical history be germane? You don't see wikipedia articles mention when someone had their appendix removed or corrective eye surgery.
Well, we're talking freely about it, aren't we? And I've certainly talked freely about it with family and friends, and neighbors who wanted to discuss my situation. Then again, I'm lucky - I have 2 big dogs to reassure and protect me. A lot of people can't be so open because of fear of retribution, either on the job or at home or school or in public. That's the unfortunate truth, and it has nothing to do with being politically correct, and everything to do with being actively discriminated against, bullied, assaulted, insulted, etc. Can you blame them for not discussing it so openly? We would all like nothing so much as a climate where we don't have to live in fear that "the other shoe will drop." That's the real 800-pound elephant - the fact that even today, transgenders of all sorts still have real concerns about safety.
It's true that it wasn't my choice to be "outed", but that's water under the bridge. I'm not going to cry about it :-)
The stats have a section where only male/female killings are considered. In fact, it's kind of hard to miss - it's right at the top of the page: Male offender/Female victim 22.7%
Female offender/Male victim 9.6%
The vast majority of the time, it's the woman who is the victim.
Don't you think this says more about "drunks shouldn't have guns"? Being cheered on, even by 1,000 women, is not a rationale to kill someone. "But judge, I couldn't help myself. She made me do it - she was cheering me on." This wouldn't even work for a speeding ticket. If you want to look at the social and cultural aspects, look no further than your gun culture. The US has an out-of-control crime problem, which explains why it has more people in jail than any other country in the world. Anecdotes like the one you describe are a symptom of that. They also have absolutely nothing to do with the ratio between men killing women and women killing men, which is a separate statistic.
A second contributor is laws that encourage murder. The three-strikes law is one such really bad law. "If I get caught this is my 3rd strike, so I have nothing to lose by killing the b*tch." Laws that encourage the killing of witnesses to a crime are dumb. People who vote for politicians who cynically push for such laws are equally dumb. A culture that supports this sort of stupidity via the voting booth, the executive branch, and the courts, is going to be a violent culture, because now both "sides" need to escalate, and when you create a situation where people have nothing to lose, don't be so surprised when they act "rationally" by killing people who could send them to jail for life.
People understand, which is why the "she cheered me on" defense doesn't work. However, just because "a lot of" aspects are stereotypical doesn't invalidate that there is a biological basis for much human behaviour. To say that it can be explained away by culture doesn't work - the differential murder rate between men killing women and women killing men, and the universally higher rates of men as killers, say otherwise. Both sexes have the same "fight or flight" mechanism, but men are by far more likely to fight.
But let's look at other stuff that isn't so violent, but reinforces typical stereotypes. How about shopping? I love shopping, even when I don't buy anything. Guys? They admit that most of them approach it like a military mission - go in, acquire the target, and get out. Why the difference? It can't be entirely cultural when so many different cultures share the same stereotypical behaviour. Another one - shoes. How many pair of shoes does the average man have? 3 Women? it depends on age
And th
I did NOT write that it has to go to a jury. I wrote that HP has the right under both the California and American Constitutions to demand that the section of the California Civil Code be applied. HP has asked for a jury trial, but they could have also asked for a bench trial. That is their privilege, same as Oracle. What is not their privilege, but their Constitutionally-guaranteed right, is enforcement of the California Civil Code. The law is applicable to potential disclosures. That's why it provides for a restraining order. Here's the entire text of the section of the law that HP cites:
Is a non-compete sometimes valid in California? Absolutely!
That's pretty straight-forward.
under California law, specifically section 3426.2a and the 16600 exception.
of trade secrets is a fact to be determined at trial.
to Section 16600 hinges on that to-be-determined fact, so the judge can't
toss the case without first having the trial.
blood money to walk away.
So, I'm still holding the Pair of Courts, the Pair of Legislatures, and the Pair of Constitutions, as well as the Queen of Trade Secret Protection and for the Trump the Non-Compete Exception. Oh yes, I also have the legal brief prepared by high-powered lawyers. You have ... ummm .... nothing much?
What the heck, go fish :-) Maybe you'll get lucky this time.
There's a time and a place. This was neither, though I'm sure you enjoyed yourself, like usual. Why, I don't know, and frankly, I don't care. But hey, if it will make you happy, pretend this is written all in caps, and me being angry or upset, instead of just shaking my head at how someone can be so eager to show that their opinions are once again worthless :-)
Cake does not return. It sticks to your waist-line like ... well, like cake.
I would disagree with this one. Like normalization, you can carry it to too far an extreme, even to constructing individual classes for every trivial operation, when they form a natural grouping, or could be better handled in a single function, no classes needed.
Classes as necessary, but not necessarily classes. Normalization as much as is natural in the context, and no further. People sometimes get carried away - I've certainly been guilty of it on at least 2 occasions :-)
So unless the law has been repealed (it hasn't been) or the Constitution has been repealed at both the state and federal level (they hasn't been) or due process has been suspended in the civil court system (it hasn't been), HP is entirely within it's rights to demand that the courts enforce California law..
So I see your quote and raise you 2 Constitutions (state and fed), 2 legislative branches. (state and fed), and 2 executive branches (state and fed). I'm showing 3 pair to your single card.
YOu can keep arguing, but I'm already holding the biggest cards in the deck.
All the jobs you named have greater public exposure, and thus greater risk of someone asking "whatever happened to ...", even if they're kept out of the loop, and the more people you bring into the loop, the more chances for a negative reaction. You can be perfectly passable to the general public, and at ease in your gender, and then one day, it only takes one person who already has a fear of transgenders to make the connection and ruin your job and your self-confidence.
It;s not the same if, for example, someone makes a fuss because you're black or white or red or yellow. Most people haven't gone through years of messy scenes with friends or family because they "should change their skin colour".A parent's negative reaction to a child who identifies as female in order to "get them to man up" just doesn't work on so many levels. Unfortunately it's often only the beginning of a stream of physical abuse from schoolyard bullies and others, so it's no wonder that many transgendered women learn to put on a public persona that is so at odds with who we are.
Point well explained, and taken. Thanks.
As I said, it's not an absolute - there are variations. There are women with long ring fingers and men with short ring fingers who are quite happy the way they are. To say that the ratio applies universally is an over-simplification. It's just one more data point in unraveling a complex puzzle of how the genes in the fetus react to the uterine environment, and vice versa.
I *did* say to either get lessons or use your webcam to help you see what you're doing from another perspective. I didn't say to give up altogether. Unfortunately, for some reason, the word "lessons" got dropped. My mistake - I should have used preview, and I apologize for the misunderstanding.
Let's look again at the original signature:
Now, let's cut to the brass tacks.
Could it be offensive to refer to a woman, either genetic or trans, as a man? I think it could be. You may want to ask around. Go up to a few women and address them as "Mr.", or a few men and address them as "Madame", and report back your results. :-)
Here's what she wrote:
She politely pointed out, while giving the benefit of the doubt, the truth - that misgendering someone is inappropriate.
Everything else has followed from that. Some people have taken umbrage when I've written that this stereotype is rude and crude and offensive to women, and yet they go into denial when I point out that statistics back up some stereotypes of men, such as that men don't do anywhere near their share of the housework (latest stats say women do 3x as much cleaning around the house, and 6x as much laundry), and that men are several times more likely to kill women than vice versa - and as another woman pointed out, that the stats for men killing transgenders is even worse.
And that is very much on topic to this particular thread - that some stereotypes are not based in fact, but are used to attack women, and other stereotypes reflect reality - that men do most of the violence in today's society, that transgendered women are even more at risk, that socially as well as financially, transgendered women face the double whammy of being discriminated against as women and as being transgendered.
But again - I was not personally offended. I'm an admirer of George Carlin's work. I "get it." However, I also think that in this venue, the original argument that it is offensive is valid, especially when you consider how many transgendered people are afraid to speak up here because they fear both being outed and being subjected to the same "transsexual guy" thing. All negative stereotypes need to be worked on. Women shouldn't be referred to as "transsexual guys", by anyone of either gender, and many men need to pick up their share of the housework and stop killing their wives and former girlfriends.
I remember one study back in the dead-tree days that, while it didn't explain this disproportionate tendency to kill, leads me to propose a simple theory. The study showed that while women are usually hit hardest during the initial breakup, we also get over it quicker. Men on the other hand, show the opposite, with higher levels of depression later on in the "grieving" process. I think this could be due to the way that the whole dating process works. The man is the one who usually "puts himself at risk of rejection" when asking a woman out, and the last thing anyone needs after a break-up is more rejections. So while the men trying to re-establish their lives will accumulate more rejections during the following months, the women get an ego boost every time they're asked out, without having to take that same risk of rejection. For women, this serves as a counterweight to the depression of a break-up and re-establishes self-esteem.
As a society, we need to give men the ability to sa
My sister who has to deal with a hubby and 2 adult sons who consistently can't replace the toilet paper in either bathroom - in both cases, they're sitting right there beside the toilet in one of those "tube-type" thingies. I've walked into the bathroom and the roll is completely empty. Funny how, no matter how little toilet paper was on the roll, it was always "just enough" to "do the paperwork."
I'm not going to deny the other stereotype, though it is exaggerated a bit - obviously women do use more toilet paper, because there's more places to wipe. But not 97% more - especially after the guys have had an impromptu chili-eating contest. "Come look at this - you won't believe it!" No thanks. I've changed enough diapers, I pick up after my dogs - I get the picture.
Seriously though, I've compared notes with other women, and it's amazing how many men need only exactly what was left on the roll. Maybe it's related to the toilet-seat thing.
Speaking of the toilet-seat thing, on this I side with the men - the seat should be up. I've seen too many toilets in too many households where either the guy thinks it's long enough, or his aim good enough, (or if it's an adult, he's pissed enough), that he doesn't feel the need to lift the seat when he pees. So please, lift the seat before you pee, and leave it up so that when I go into the bathroom, I know that nobody's "dribbled" or "backspashed" or whatever. In return, I'll lift it when I'm finished, and at 2 a.m. I'll turn on the light and look before I sit, so you won't hear a splash followed by my screaming your name. Is that fair enough?
If you look elsewhere in the thread, I make it clear that the dividing lines are not clear-cut - there are women who wouldn't dream of cleaning a toilet, and men who ask for directions without worrying about what someone might think. We're certainly not all stamped out of the same mold - or if we are, someone must have broken it and duct-taped it back together before it was my turn.
I don't know - maybe it's because I've had the unfortunate "privilege" of seeing it from both sides (sort of like an "under cover gender spy", I guess), that for me the differences are highlighted - and a source of raw material for a bit of both humour and social commentary. I've sat through I don't know how many conversations where the guys are all acting like little boys when a woman enters the room, and where women are evaluated for job reviews, not on their talents, but strictly by their looks - "Hire that one, she's hot." And sure enough, that's the one who gets hired. And that's just the surface. Guys married and with kids chasing after every woman they see, then talking about them like they were pieces of meat (whether they "scored" or not), openly saying that "that customer 'fits the gauge'" because they think they're sharing "just among the guys", speculating on whether the waitress would be good in bed or not, not realizing that she's now right behind them with their order. It's embarrassing. I know that not all guys can be like that, but so many of them (easily the majority) are so much of the time when they think there are no women around.
And I've experienced it from the other side, working as a receptionist, when male sales reps come in and most of them do "the scan" - they look at two things - boobs and ring finger. Same thing when I walk my dogs. Guys will cross the street a half-block away so that they can "casually" be on the same side of the street when our paths cross. After a few "accidental encounters" they'll talk, they'll try to find out if I'm single, what am I doing later on - it's so transparent. It's okay though, because it is a bit of an ego boost, though I will be the first to admit that I was really startled the first time it happened. And I'm certainly not complaining about having doors opened for me, or stuff being carried to the car by a store clerk. Or the freedom to wear a skirt when it's 100 degrees outside and guys are stuck wearing pants because "men with hairy legs in shorts is not suitable office attire". And I'm sure there are some men who wish they had complete freedom from neck-ties, even for the most serious occasions.
With all the hassles, there *have* to be a few counter-balancing points, right?
I guess what I'm trying to say is that, while we shouldn't depend on stereotypes to give us the "plain unvarnished truth", in some instances they do have a basis in current or past social customs or values, and, just by the law of averages, some of them are going to contain more than a kernel of truth. And that if we can't laugh at ourselves and our weaknesses, we're doomed.
I also made it clear that I think Carlin's purpose, as with much of his material, was NOT to put down transpeople, but more a comment on society in general, and people's attitudes on what constitutes "funny." George works on more than one level. He also worked within a specific context. I think if we could ask him, he'd say "Yeh, I said it, and it's funny. It's funny because ******* people are ****** ***** who will laugh at anything. Maybe one of them will wake up and get a ******* clue and realize that I'm making fun of their ignorant ******* behaviour. Yeah, like that's going to happen in my ******* lifetime."
\ That being said, the original poster was right on the money - referring to a transgendered woman as a "transsexual guy" is offensive. Very offensive. That is *all* that they said. They didn't slag the whole quote, just that one word. If anyone used that on me, I certainly wouldn't be too pleased about it. It's wrong.
The original context where Carlin said it not this context, and what was social commentary there doesn't come across the same here; if it was a one-time post, it would have been ignored, but signatures, well, people sometimes pick them to say something representative, and in this context, it's understandably offensive to some. Context is important. Without context, we don't have information, just noise.
I can see the complications with living by the "I will take offense at people who take offense" creed. I would suggest, however, that some things are validly offensive in certain contexts. The context here is a tech site where many transpeople feel that they can participate with minimum risk. Referring to a transgendered woman ("Mary") as a guy in a signature file is a bit messed up.
Does it offend me at this point in time? No - because I doubt the poster ever even gave it a thought. However, if they then went on a long transphobic rant-fest, I'd change my opinion. Either way, though, the original poster was well within her rights to say that referring to a woman - either genetic or trans - as a guy, in this venue, is offensive.
If you're offended by that, I don't know what to say. I'm not going to say that you don't have the right to feel that way, just as I'm not going to say that the original poster doesn't have a right to use the signature of their choice. However, in this debate, I side with the woman who pointed out that referring to women as "guys" is offensive.
Compared to other office-based jobs, programming is more accessible to transgenders; this is certainly the case before transitioning, where most companies still want a woman working the reception desk. But more importantly, IT is more open to transsexuals than, say, construction or other male-dominated professions.
The computer you're using right now is only possible because of the work of this woman. Multi-player computer games owe much of their success to this woman. And what list would be complete without a rocket scientist?
My personal thoughts on the matter are that our attempts to reconcile our differences with our external life provide extra stimulus to the problem-solving area of the brain, even before we're aware that we are different at any conscious level. So we end up gravitating to fields that
(1) have problems that use those same problem-solving skills - for example, I *love* the challenge of debugging, whereas most programmers would rather write new code, and
(2) don't force us as rigidly into a gender model we don't fit in - it's okay for women to be programmers, but men "man" a jackhammer.
(3) if we're outed in an IT context, we're less likely to get the crap beaten out of us, and more likely to be treated fairly.
That last one is a big consideration. Ask any transgender (either m2f or f2m) and they'll probably have more than one story about being physically assaulted just because they were "different".
Or just look through the comments here. Idle isn't exactly known for being a popular slashdot feature, and yet this particular discussion ... well, it speaks for itself, just like the women who have said that they can't post publicly because of fear says something.
The only reason I can is because I've gotten over my original mortification ... but I certainly would rather that it hadn't come out. All any of us want is our lives. IT is a relatively safe area for us to build a life, so it's to be expected that you'll find transsexuals over-represented compared to other fields where the gender participation lines are much clearer.