Non TS/TV males who post as women on WP, testimonials wanted, enquire within Options

[the fieryangel]

In the project that I'm currently working on with Peter, Greg, and Eric, I'm writing the chapter on Users. In the section discussing the systemic bias, I'm going to try to go into detail as to the gender gap and possible reasons why this exists.

It's obvious why TS/TV individuals post as women, so that's pretty self-explanatory (dare I say "normal"?) However, it would seem that a great many non-TS/TV males contribute to WP as females, either via sock puppets (à la Kristen Erikson) and also as their main personae. I'm looking for people who would be willing to discuss how posting as females changes the experience on WP. I would also be interested in women who post as males and why they do that. (I know of at least one experience of this happening and I'm sure that there are more....)

Just send me a private message here and we'll discuss it.

[Ceoil]

Dude you post under the guise of a cat?

This post has been edited by Ceoil:

[Ottava]

Most of the "TS/TV" identify as males irl and just say that online because they were caught pretending to be female. It is all nonsense. They just want attention and demand to have their fantasies indulged or are trying to justify/hide that they were pretending to be female to manipulate others. I love when the furries demand to be addressed as their imaginary characters on IRC too.

[carbuncle]

Most of the "TS/TV" identify as males irl and just say that online because they were caught pretending to be female. It is all nonsense. They just want attention and demand to have their fantasies indulged or are trying to justify/hide that they were pretending to be female to manipulate others. I love when the furries demand to be addressed as their imaginary characters on IRC too.

There may be more than one reason why someone would pretend to be something online that they are not in real life. I think this was a request for people to come forward and contact the fieryangel, not an inducement to start a discussion on the topic.

[Peter Damian]

There was an interesting study http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mind_the_Gap linked to in another thread, which suggested (using gender-identifying words) that many editors on Wikipedia who identify as female, may actually be male.

[thekohser]

...may actually be male.

Or skew male-like, or have adapted to Wikipedia's male culture by "fitting in" with male-like output.

[Ottava]

Most of the "TS/TV" identify as males irl and just say that online because they were caught pretending to be female. It is all nonsense. They just want attention and demand to have their fantasies indulged or are trying to justify/hide that they were pretending to be female to manipulate others. I love when the furries demand to be addressed as their imaginary characters on IRC too.

There may be more than one reason why someone would pretend to be something online that they are not in real life. I think this was a request for people to come forward and contact the fieryangel, not an inducement to start a discussion on the topic.

Yet not everyone is able to actually send private messages, and it is posted publicly and not locked. So....



By the way, I saw at least 2 males who are known to merely have been pretending to be females before (and both came out as TV to hide from censure) be given the "survey" for women. Wonderful stuff.

This post has been edited by Ottava:

[carbuncle]

By the way, I saw at least 2 males who are known to merely have been pretending to be females before (and both came out as TV to hide from censure) be given the "survey" for women. Wonderful stuff.

Perhaps they are "TS/TV", which is why they would say that they were so and why they might adopt an online female identity? It seems odd to me that someone would admit to being something that opens them up to ridicule, misunderstanding, and abuse rather than admit to lying about their gender. I'm not discounting that trolls are going to, well, troll, but I don't understand why you assume that their claims are false. Is it simply that transgendered people are an impossibility in your worldview?

[Ottava]

By the way, I saw at least 2 males who are known to merely have been pretending to be females before (and both came out as TV to hide from censure) be given the "survey" for women. Wonderful stuff.

Perhaps they are "TS/TV", which is why they would say that they were so and why they might adopt an online female identity? It seems odd to me that someone would admit to being something that opens them up to ridicule, misunderstanding, and abuse rather than admit to lying about their gender. I'm not discounting that trolls are going to, well, troll, but I don't understand why you assume that their claims are false. Is it simply that transgendered people are an impossibility in your worldview?

They walk around as males irl.

Furthermore, the whole TS/TV thing is bs. Merely putting on an outfit or an identity does not make you such, or there are a lot of Hamlets out there.

[that one guy]

By the way, I saw at least 2 males who are known to merely have been pretending to be females before (and both came out as TV to hide from censure) be given the "survey" for women. Wonderful stuff.

Perhaps they are "TS/TV", which is why they would say that they were so and why they might adopt an online female identity? It seems odd to me that someone would admit to being something that opens them up to ridicule, misunderstanding, and abuse rather than admit to lying about their gender. I'm not discounting that trolls are going to, well, troll, but I don't understand why you assume that their claims are false. Is it simply that transgendered people are an impossibility in your worldview?

They walk around as males irl.

Furthermore, the whole TS/TV thing is bs. Merely putting on an outfit or an identity does not make you such, or there are a lot of Hamlets out there.

{{fact}}

edit: a mod may want to split the thread if it keeps going this way, just a thought

This post has been edited by that one guy:

[carbuncle]

Furthermore, the whole TS/TV thing is bs. Merely putting on an outfit or an identity does not make you such, or there are a lot of Hamlets out there.

I'm going to assume that by "such" you mean "the gender normally associated with such clothing". What if a biological male dresses and acts like a female at all times, takes female hormones, gets breast implants, and has their penis reconstructed into a simulated vagina? Does that count? Just curious.

This post has been edited by carbuncle:

[EricBarbour]

Non-judgmentally: Peter, it will be very difficult to develop some kind of even-half-reliable statistics
on this, because of the inherent manchild wargaming culture of WP. I've tried already, with the admins.

By definition, women are not welcome, and it encourages men to pose as women (Poetlister and
many more) to score "points" or to manipulate others. WP's culture is inherently hostile, which is why
the "Mind the Gap" business is a joke. Wikipedians are hostile to actual experts, they are hostile to
outsiders, they are hostile to paid editing (good or bad), they are hostile to critics. They are hostile to
people who want to balance the editorial content away from the sports-gaming-military-comic book bias
it already shows, and in a more "encyclopedic" direction.

Of course they'll be hostile to women who want to bring new female editors in.

Judgmentally: Jeff, please spare us the Catholic "social engineering". It obviously won't work on WP,
and it adds nothing to the conversation here. We're supposed to be studying a dysfunctional social
system, not editorializing about it.

[Ottava]

Furthermore, the whole TS/TV thing is bs. Merely putting on an outfit or an identity does not make you such, or there are a lot of Hamlets out there.

I'm going to assume that by "such" you mean "the gender normally associated with such clothing". What if a biological male dresses and acts like a female at all times, takes female hormones, gets breast implants, and has their penis reconstructed into a simulated vagina? Does that count? Just curious.

Look at it this way:

The guy who inked his skin blue, put in metal and bone implants into his body, and cut up his ears to make himself look like some kind of freakish cat person is still human.

There is less genetic difference between a male chimp and a male human than there is between a male human and a female human. You cannot change your genetic code because you cut your body apart, used chemicals, etc.

Johns Hopkins stopped sex changes because they determined that it was a mental disease. You can read about it here. Note, they were the ones that pioneered the sex change operations, and the guy who started it all was the one to realize that it was really, really problematic. The people need psychological counseling in the same way furries do and anyone else who needs to play pretend.

Thinking you are the wrong gender is no different from thinking you are the wrong race, species, etc. It is all about self-loathing. It takes a lot of insanity to think "maybe if I chop up my sexual organs that will make me better". It is related to body dysmorphia and other major illnesses.

And this is assuming the people aren't just doing it for attention, which 99.9% of the people on Wikipedia do it for (and many, like Poetlister, abuse that attention to try and gain power, trust, etc).



Eric:

By definition, women are not welcome, and it encourages men to pose as women (Poetlister and
many more) to score "points" or to manipulate others. WP's culture is inherently hostile, which is why
the "Mind the Gap" business is a joke.

You are forgetting one thing: the old idea that "only a man knows how to please a man" (the theme from M Butterfly) - i.e. men pose as women and then manipulate other men in ways women would not.

Judgmentally: Jeff, please spare us the Catholic "social engineering".

It has nothing to do with religion and all to do with psychology. Read the Johns Hopkins report. They stopped sex change surgeries because they determined that it was a horrible mistake in indulging these people who need psychological treatment instead.

This post has been edited by Ottava:

[SB_Johnny]

You are forgetting one thing: the old idea that "only a man knows how to please a man" (the theme from M Butterfly) - i.e. men pose as women and then manipulate other men in ways women would not.

Ottava, if you ever go on a date with a real girl, you should bring along a guy buddy with more experience than you as a chaperone. Hell, bring Horsey... even he might no more about girls than you. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

[that one guy]

Really Ottava, you're going to use NARTH as a resource. That alone is just wrong.

[Somey]

Really Ottava, you're going to use NARTH as a resource. That alone is just wrong.

And on top of that, the article doesn't even say what he apparently wants us to believe it says. And this isn't the first time, either...

At the same time, I would agree that it's a very bad idea for physicians to agree to perform SRS operations if the person requesting them hasn't had a significant amount of psychological, if not actual psychiatric, counseling. Thankfully, I believe that's considered standard procedure in the USA, though there are probably surgeons who would do it without that, just for the money.

[Ottava]

Really Ottava, you're going to use NARTH as a resource. That alone is just wrong.

And on top of that, the article doesn't even say what he apparently wants us to believe it says. And this isn't the first time, either...

At the same time, I would agree that it's a very bad idea for physicians to agree to perform SRS operations if the person requesting them hasn't had a significant amount of psychological, if not actual psychiatric, counseling. Thankfully, I believe that's considered standard procedure in the USA, though there are probably surgeons who would do it without that, just for the money.

Really?

John Hopkins's press release on the matter.

They halted it 100%. Not "until major counseling".

"A second, smaller category of the sex unit’s patients suffers from serious “disorders,” like gender dysphoria—the technical diagnostic term for people who think they’re trapped in the body of the wrong sex—and paraphilias such as transvestitism and pedophilia. These people, according to Paul Costa, Ph.D., an expert in personality assessments, “are more problem-prone as well.” Besides their sexual conflicts, they have a tendency toward high levels of anxiety, hostility and neuroticism." - Johns Hopkins.

That isn't the commentary of a group who believes that these people are "normal" or "psychologically sound".

More:

Controversy over sex-change surgery at Hopkins raged, both in the media and inside the institution. “This was taking place at a very conservative place and in a highly charged atmosphere,” Schmidt recalls. “It’s pretty rough surgery; some people consider it mutilating. And, of course, the scientific side of it is pretty damn weak.”

Finally, in 1979, the unit’s then-director, Meyer, published a study questioning certain benefits of the surgery that helped convince the Hopkins hierarchy to eliminate its sex reassignment program entirely. But that early foray into gender reassignment here has maintained a long media shelf life. Before a recent case conference, Strand passed around a copy of a New Yorker essay containing a sex-change joke punctuated with a reference to Hopkins; it was published last May, nearly two decades after the Hospital last performed such surgery.

To psychiatrist Wise, who’s been with the sex unit since 1974, its strength lies in a set of practices poles away from the New Yorker portrayal. Not being “buffeted about” by all the societal changes of the ’70s, ’80s and ’90s on issues like gender dysphoria is one of the qualities that makes this group stand out, he says. Without looking beyond mainstream America, the unit’s been able to see thousands of men and women through deep sexual conflicts.

They even say that there was no science backing the surgery and their own people wanted it stopped back then.

Instead, they counsel people to accept themselves instead of helping them alter their bodies to match their psychological illness.



P.S. - Somey, the quotes from Paul McHugh in NARTH piece are damning and say 100% reason why the stuff is a psychological disorder and not something that we should indulge in others. You have not proven that the quotes are wrong. Hard to deny this quote from him: "I have witnessed a great deal of damage from sex-reassignment. The children transformed from their male constitution into female roles suffered prolonged distress and misery as they sensed their natural attitudes. ... We have wasted scientific and technical resources and damaged our professional credibility by collaborating with madness rather than trying to study, cure, and ultimately prevent it."

He published the quote in his book discussing the matter.

"As for the adults who came to us claiming to have discovered their 'true' sexual identity and to have heard about sex-change operations, we psychiatrists have been distracted from studying the causes and natures of their mental misdirections by preparing them for surgery and for a life in the other sex. We have wasted scientific and technical resources and damaged our professional credibility by collaborating with madness rather than trying to study, cure, and ultimately prevent it." p. 228 Dr. Paul McHugh, one of the few world experts on Sex Reassignment Surgery and has a background that few can compare.



By the way, Thekohser below -

Males have XY Chromosome while females have XX. That difference provides for more of a genetic difference than the humans and the chimps of the same gender. The point is to illustrate that even if a man "thinks" he is a woman, that Y is doing things that would not happen in an XX.

Here is a source. It is a very common statement. I'm surprised you haven't seen it before.

This post has been edited by Ottava:

[thekohser]

My bad.

This post has been edited by thekohser:

[Somey]

Really?

John Hopkins's press release on the matter.

They halted it 100%. Not "until major counseling".

Jeez, not only did you not read the article at the original link, not to mention what I actually posted, you didn't even read the article you linked to as a rebuttal. Has nothing changed since I went on vacation?

There's nothing in either of those articles that says they stopped doing SRS because they somehow "concluded" that the desire to obtain a sex-change represents a mental illness. It does say that they followed up on several such operations and found that rather few of the people who had been reassigned were "comfortable" with their new gender, but is that really so surprising? If you ask me, that's a bit like saying "we went back and checked with all the people whose arms we'd cut off, and found that rather few of them had gone on to become pitchers for the Baltimore Orioles."

Seriously, Ottava - it might, in some cases, be a sign of mental illness, I'll freely admit and agree with that. But it might also be a sign that the person has been messed up genetically from birth, can't get his/her shit together as the gender he/she was born as, and just wants to give it a shot in the hopes that he/she will be better off. And if Johns Hopkins didn't want to be a part of that, it doesn't mean they were making some sort of blanket pronouncement about the mental state of those people - it's far more likely to mean they're just a conservative, controversy-averse institution, just like the article says they are.

[Ottava]

Really?

John Hopkins's press release on the matter.

They halted it 100%. Not "until major counseling".

Jeez, not only did you not read the article at the original link, not to mention what I actually posted, you didn't even read the article you linked to as a rebuttal. Has nothing changed since I went on vacation?

There's nothing in either of those articles that says they stopped doing SRS because they somehow "concluded" that the desire to obtain a sex-change represents a mental illness. It does say that they followed up on several such operations and found that rather few of the people who had been reassigned were "comfortable" with their new gender, but is that really so surprising? If you ask me, that's a bit like saying "we went back and checked with all the people whose arms we'd cut off, and found that rather few of them had gone on to become pitchers for the Baltimore Orioles."

Seriously, Ottava - it might, in some cases, be a sign of mental illness, I'll freely admit and agree with that. But it might also be a sign that the person has been messed up genetically from birth, can't get his/her shit together as the gender he/she was born as, and just wants to give it a shot in the hopes that he/she will be better off. And if Johns Hopkins didn't want to be a part of that, it doesn't mean they were making some sort of blanket pronouncement about the mental state of those people - it's far more likely to mean they're just a conservative, controversy-averse institution, just like the article says they are.

You question my ability to read, but honestly, you haven't bothered to read.

"damaged our professional credibility by collaborating with madness rather than trying to study, cure, and ultimately prevent it" is really, really, really clear on the topic.

That is from the guy who stopped the program.

Both articles show that the program was closed because the people in charged believed that all desires for sex changes were a psychological illness and you do not treat a psychological illness by mutilating a body to indulge in fantasy.

That is indisputable. Merely covering your ears and going "la la la la, I don't hear you, anything you say is wrong because I magically declared it so" wont change that Somey.

it doesn't mean they were making some sort of blanket pronouncement about the mental state of those people - it's far more likely to mean they're just a conservative, controversy-averse institution, just like the article says they are

Which could be true if they weren't the developers of the procedure and pioneered the field before they got evidence 100% debunking the surgeries as a whole.

This post has been edited by Ottava:

[carbuncle]

Ottava, you may be conflating the sexual reassignment of infants born with ambiguous or malformed genitalia with the sexual reassignment of adults. This is part of the Johns Hopkins case you present, and the subject of one of the studies cited.

In any case, that wasn't my point. I was simply curious about your views on gender. I am not at all surprised by your answers here. (Nor am I surprised to see your fingerprints all over Paul R. McHugh's BLP...)

This post has been edited by carbuncle:

[Somey]

Ottava, you're reading what you want the articles to say, not what they actually say. It's the classic modern-conservative problem.

As for what's clear and what isn't, the first article says, in paragraph 2, "The prevailing theory at the time was that while sex was genetically determined at birth, the concept of gender was culturally shaped and malleable and that being female or male were interchangeable." It seems more likely to me that by "madness," he's referring to the fact that this was the prevailing theory, and not necessarily a specific reference to the mental states of SRS patients.

I haven't really met a lot of people who were considering gender-reassignment (in fact, I'd say the total is exactly 1). But you don't hear a lot of stories about such people running around frothing at the mouth and shooting up high schools, do you? No, because the vast majority of them are perfectly sane, even if in many cases they're depressed or anxiety-ridden over their self-perception issues. Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to me that a decent psychiatrist might have said they were "collaborating with depression" or (more likely) "confusion" if he was talking about the patients... but certainly not "madness."

[that one guy]

There's one thing I've come to understand from my interaction with transgender people: it's impossible to grasp what they're going through unless you're transgender yourself. Keep that in mind.

[Alison]

LOL - it's Ottava, folks! Didn't we have a very similar Ottavian conversation already? Yes, I believe we did, yet here he is, back hijacking threads and spouting the same old nonsense (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

Bear in mind that this is a guy who doesn't know what a vagina is. Yet here he is, pontificating on matters sexual, all the while he's yanking everyone's chain ... again (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

This thread should be inscribed in bronze and put on a pedestal in a marble-lined alcove with tasteful indirect lighting, so that everyone Ottava picks on in the future (or attempts to date, god forbid) can see who they're dealing with.

Just sayin'.

[EricBarbour]

Yes, we did. And I'm going elsewhere.

[the fieryangel]

Yes, we did. And I'm going elsewhere.

Well, I didn't need to know anything about people who identify as TS/TV. That's outside what I was asking about.

What I was asking about is "guys who post as girls in order to work the system on WP". I've gotten a few bites from people who have my email address. If anybody else wants to give me their stories (I'm only interested in case studies, so I'm not going to out you....Unless you're a well-known female WP cabal member such as Slim Virgin and really a guy...Wouldn't that be funny?).

My email is oscarlechien AT gmial dot com.

As far as the rest of it, been there, done that...Thanks in advance.

[Ottava]

Ottava, you may be conflating the sexual reassignment of infants born with ambiguous or malformed genitalia with the sexual reassignment of adults. This is part of the Johns Hopkins case you present, and the subject of one of the studies cited.

What I quoted

"As for the adults who came to us claiming to have discovered their 'true' sexual identity and to have heard about sex-change operations, we psychiatrists have been distracted from studying the causes and natures of their mental misdirections by preparing them for surgery and for a life in the other sex. We have wasted scientific and technical resources and damaged our professional credibility by collaborating with madness rather than trying to study, cure, and ultimately prevent it." p. 228 Dr. Paul McHugh, one of the few world experts on Sex Reassignment Surgery and has a background that few can compare.


It has nothing to do with children.

It is shameful that the people who believe that such things are anything but an illness are blatantly making things up.

Dr McHugh makes it clear that 1. they are adults and 2. they are all mad. There is no way to argue against that. You can say that Dr. McHugh is wrong, but you cannot say that he doesn't think all TG is a mental illness. He is one of the biggest opponents of transgender operations in the world because of years of studying and realizing that it is nothing more than an illness.



Somey

As for what's clear and what isn't, the first article says, in paragraph 2, "The prevailing theory at the time was that while sex was genetically determined at birth, the concept of gender was culturally shaped and malleable and that being female or male were interchangeable." It seems more likely to me that by "madness," he's referring to the fact that this was the prevailing theory, and not necessarily a specific reference to the mental states of SRS patients.

You bash me over sources, but you are taking one source and saying it refers to another when it is clear that it does not.

" by collaborating with madness rather than trying to study, cure, and ultimately prevent it" from Dr McHugh clearly means "we need to make these people realize that their gender is the right one and that they were not born with the wrong gender". That means the whole gender confusion is a mental illness. There is no other way to interpret it.



Alison

"Bear in mind that this is a guy who doesn't know what a vagina is. Yet here he is, pontificating on matters sexual, all the while he's yanking everyone's chain ... again"

You know very well that vagina is used as short hand for vaginal area and that all nicknames refer to the crotch as a whole. You are quibbling over my using a colloquial and non-specific phrase by substituting a medical definition in order to make an outrageous claim, then you state that -I- am the one trying to go off topic. Odd, I put up actual, credible experts who make it clear that TG is an illness and cannot be anything but, and the opposition has to stoop to outright fantasies or crazy attacks.

If you had a case, you would have put up evidence. You validate that there is no way to justify these people.

[A Horse With No Name]

Hell, bring Horsey... even he might no more about girls than you. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

Sarcasm is always more effective when it is spelled correctly. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

.Unless you're a well-known female WP cabal member such as Slim Virgin and really a guy...Wouldn't that be funny?).

It was funny with Jaye Davidson in the movies...not so funny in real life! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)

[Alison]

Alison

"Bear in mind that this is a guy who doesn't know what a vagina is. Yet here he is, pontificating on matters sexual, all the while he's yanking everyone's chain ... again"

You know very well that vagina is used as short hand for vaginal area and that all nicknames refer to the crotch as a whole. You are quibbling over my using a colloquial and non-specific phrase by substituting a medical definition in order to make an outrageous claim, then you state that -I- am the one trying to go off topic. Odd, I put up actual, credible experts who make it clear that TG is an illness and cannot be anything but, and the opposition has to stoop to outright fantasies or crazy attacks.

If you had a case, you would have put up evidence. You validate that there is no way to justify these people.

LOL - I'm not here to debate with you, Ottava. You've clearly and repeatedly shown me that you're utterly impervious to reason. Being ignorant of what a vagina is (and lemme tell ya: if you have one, these things matter (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif) ) is just one indicator as to how pig-ignorant you are. I have plenty to say on these matters and have posted at length on related issues, so can stand up to proper, scientific criticism. But when someone's "rebuttal" consists of "f'off with your pc hippie bs", then I know we're done and there's truly no point in continuing. Cleaning out my cat's litter box would be a far better use of my time and arguably more intellectually stimulating.

tldr; There's no point in attempting to discuss anything here as you're just here to troll others and stroke your own ego.

[Malleus]

There's one thing I've come to understand from my interaction with transgender people: it's impossible to grasp what they're going through unless you're transgender yourself. Keep that in mind.

Er, yes, but? It's equally impossible for a transgender person to know what it's like not to be transgender, or what it's like to be unfortunate enough to be a Californian.

[that one guy]

There's one thing I've come to understand from my interaction with transgender people: it's impossible to grasp what they're going through unless you're transgender yourself. Keep that in mind.

Er, yes, but? It's equally impossible for a transgender person to know what it's like not to be transgender, or what it's like to be unfortunate enough to be a Californian.

Good point. But I'd rather be Californian than someone from Illinois. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

[Malleus]

Good point. But I'd rather be Californian than someone from Illinois. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

I suppose California has a more congenial climate, but there's a heavy price to pay for it.

[Ottava]

LOL - I'm not here to debate with you, Ottava. You've clearly and repeatedly shown me that you're utterly impervious to reason. Being ignorant of what a vagina is (and lemme tell ya: if you have one, these things matter (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif) ) is just one indicator as to how pig-ignorant you are.

Because I don't use words with a technical specificity of someone who is trying to be a douche?

Both "vag" (444k hits) and "vagina" (3.37 million hits) are quite common when talking about "shaving".

In common usage, it is done quite often. You aren't right, just a snob.

[Abd]

Because I don't use words with a technical specificity of someone who is trying to be a douche?

The really sad thing is that Ottava imagines he can win arguments. He is current involved in many threads (particularly at Wikiversity and meta) where he's completely out to lunch, yet he attacks everyone else as obviously wrong, and worse than wrong, with evil intentions to boot. Almost everything he sticks his fingers in becomes Ottava's Right, You are Wrong. When someone comes back with a cogent answer, he then says, "See! Look how Wrong you are! You shouldn't be allowed to say anything, you are so wrong. You should be banned."

And then when he's banned, he's so amazed. Why is he being banned? After all, he was Right, and they are the ones who should be banned!

I understand the problem with being Right, it's one of my afflictions. But I don't try to ban people who disagree with me. I actually try to listen and respond. It takes all kinds. If everyone agreed with me, it would be totally boring, not to mention agreement on an error, at least sometimes!

[Abd]

Case in point: Ottava's latest on meta. Ottava's on a bender about XML import, has no clue, fails to understand that XML import is far more powerful when it comes to handling massive imports, as with some new wikis. Yeah, it's a very dangerous tool, it could make a huge mess. But it's really only being proposed as a transient user right for new wikis, as part of the set-up.

The user group that Ruslik has created will only be assigned temporarily, to those setting up a new wiki. As matters are now, I believe it takes a developer to handle that type of import. This is not a tool to be allowed for an operating wiki, because it can imitate edits by named users, merging them with existing contributions, probably not at all easy to distinguish. It can also create thousands of edits in a single import, if I'm correct, on hundreds of pages. This tool should only be assigned for a narrow time, and local 'crats should not be able to do this.

In any case, Ottava thinks he can tell a steward what he can and cannot do. Ottava has always been totally clueless as to how wikis really operate. He thinks that The Rules are The Rules. And he interprets the rules, always, in his own unique way. Rules, however, usually don't consider all the cases, which is why executives have discretion. Ruslik is being pretty patient, given how completely off-the-wall Ottava is.

I was blocked on meta for far, far less. How long will it be before Ottava's return to form is noticed?

[SB_Johnny]

Cleaning out my cat's litter box would be a far better use of my time and arguably more intellectually stimulating.

...? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)

[Wikicrusher2]

LOL - I'm not here to debate with you, Ottava. You've clearly and repeatedly shown me that you're utterly impervious to reason. Being ignorant of what a vagina is (and lemme tell ya: if you have one, these things matter (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif) ) is just one indicator as to how pig-ignorant you are.

Because I don't use words with a technical specificity of someone who is trying to be a douche?

Both "vag" (444k hits) and "vagina" (3.37 million hits) are quite common when talking about "shaving".

In common usage, it is done quite often. You aren't right, just a snob.

Fuck off, snob.

[Kelly Martin]

Could a mod please split off Ottava's trans-bashing to somewhere else (preferably a nice dark room filled with grues) as it is entirely off-topic? Thanks.

[The Adversary]

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif)
Wr is the only place I have encountered males (above the age of 10) who does not know, or care, what a vagina is (Ottava is not the only one, Sigh.)

Ok, for the ignorant; here is an educational video:

[Ottava]

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif)
Wr is the only place I have encountered males (above the age of 10) who does not know, or care, what a vagina is (Ottava is not the only one, Sigh.)

Ok, for the ignorant; here is an educational video:

You should really know better than to continue Alison's trolling. She made the comment because I used "vagina" instead of a more cruder word. She then tried to be technical, even though common usage especially by -females- as shown in the links, verifies my usage because there is really no polite word of describing the area people would shave there.

[A Horse With No Name]

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif)
Wr is the only place I have encountered males (above the age of 10) who does not know, or care, what a vagina is )

Don't you worry, big mama - I'm here to fill in the void. (Literally and figuratively!) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

[The Adversary]

.. no polite word of describing the area people would shave there.

Genital area.

[Alison]

.. no polite word of describing the area people would shave there.

Genital area.

Pubic area, pubic region, bikini area, "down there", etc, etc, etc. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

[Ottava]

.. no polite word of describing the area people would shave there.

Genital area.

Pubic area, pubic region, bikini area, "down there", etc, etc, etc. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

Really? Because the "pubic" area, meaning the bone, wouldn't have led to also sarcastic and stupid comments? Or bikini area also referring to breasts?

You were trolling and looking for any excuse, like you are now. An apology would be warranted, but you don't apologize for your ill behavior. I already proven that it was very common, and you have proven that you just want to cause problems. You are acting like a child.



The Adversary: "Genital area." As I pointed out, Alison would have found some inane excuse to try and make the same claim. After all, genitals refer to the sex organs and not necessarily the skin around them. There is no defense of Alison blatantly trolling, and her current action and trying to bring it up shows that she is incapable of dealing with the actual critics that prove that TG is insanity. She hates that, knows she has no way to prevent the reality of it, and must turn to side games, shows, trolling, etc., to try and hide that fact.

Johns Hopkins refuses to give those people sex changes and instead deems them mentally ill. There is no way around that, and it makes her case look utterly stupid.

This post has been edited by Ottava:

[Alison]

.. no polite word of describing the area people would shave there.

Genital area.

Pubic area, pubic region, bikini area, "down there", etc, etc, etc. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

Really? Because the "pubic" area, meaning the bone, wouldn't have led to also sarcastic and stupid comments? Or bikini area also referring to breasts?

Keyword: area

Mons pubis = pubic mound, from the Latin. You done now? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) :roll eyes:

EDIT: And, as I keep saying, there's no point in endless 'debate' with Ottava. He's impervious to reason ...

(I'm going to take my own advice and stop posting now. This is a complete waste of time ...)

[A Horse With No Name]

Or bikini area also referring to breasts?

Oh, thank goodness the conversations here on WR are becoming more interesting! For a while, there was nothing here for me to read! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

[Abd]

Really? Because the "pubic" area, meaning the bone, wouldn't have led to also sarcastic and stupid comments? Or bikini area also referring to breasts?

Ottava never learned the trick of *shutting up* when he is out of his, ah, "field."

So a "bikini wax" would mean waxing the breasts? Say what? It just got worse. Words carry meaning from usage, not from Ottava Logic. If you haven't used the words, or heard or read them enough, you can only imagine what they mean. "She shaved her pubic area" is extremely clear in usage, it refers to shaving "public hair." "

You were trolling and looking for any excuse, like you are now. An apology would be warranted, but you don't apologize for your ill behavior. I already proven that it was very common, and you have proven that you just want to cause problems. You are acting like a child.

For maximum effect, I'll link again to the post Alison was pointing to. Ottava, again, doesn't know how to laugh and say "Oops! That was stupid! Now, pass the beer!" Or whatever. Instead, he has to be Right, and he will go on for years about how Right he was, imagining that it is, in the least, convincing, and he proceeds to accuse anyone bold enough to point out his gross bloopers of this or that, such as "you are acting like a child."

Does Ottava know what "waxing" involves? I've helped a woman do it. Geez, the things women will do! And that was legs.

The Adversary: "Genital area." As I pointed out, Alison would have found some inane excuse to try and make the same claim. After all, genitals refer to the sex organs and not necessarily the skin around them. There is no defense of Alison blatantly trolling, and her current action and trying to bring it up shows that she is incapable of dealing with the actual critics that prove that TG is insanity. She hates that, knows she has no way to prevent the reality of it, and must turn to side games, shows, trolling, etc., to try and hide that fact.

When Ottava's arguments are utterly demolished, he then asserts that the others are trolling, pretending, lying, and in blatant denial of the obvious truth, i.e., whatever Ottava is asserting. It's amazing. It's consistent, and he seems to be completely unable to stop, no matter who tells him, friends, enemies, passers-by. Arbitrators, administrators, etc.

"She shaved her genital area' would not refer to the "genitals," it refers to an area, the "genital area," part of which will grow hair. Ottava is with language like he is with wiki policy: he assumes that policies should be applied strictly, just the way they are written, according to the meanings he assigns to the worlds. He has no concept of changes in meaning due to context. My God, he interprets poetry? How does he pull that off?

Johns Hopkins refuses to give those people sex changes and instead deems them mentally ill. There is no way around that, and it makes her case look utterly stupid.

Ottava cited what he called a "press release." This was it. It's not a press release. It's an article in a Johns Hopkins magazine. It does mention, in passing, that Johns Hopkins stopped doing "sex change surgeries," but it doesn't really say why. This is what is said about it:

“It’s pretty rough surgery; some people consider it mutilating. And, of course, the scientific side of it is pretty damn weak.”

Finally, in 1979, the unit’s then-director, Meyer, published a study questioning certain benefits of the surgery that helped convince the Hopkins hierarchy to eliminate its sex reassignment program entirely.

That's it. Ottava's turning this into a source for his idea that people who want sex-change surgery are sick, his citing it as if it denied what the user he'd just replied to was saying -- when, in fact, the article is consistent with that -- shows how, for Ottava, first and foremost, the principle on which he operates is that he is Right. Period. No room for any dispute. And if you dispute it, well, you must be a liar, deluded, a fool, or worse.

What Johns Hopkins operates is a sexual behaviors clinic. My guess is that after sufficient counseling, some patients are referred to those who do surgical modifications. But the article doesn't say that, it's just my understanding of what happens in the field.

What I do know is that some people are born with ambiguous genitalia. What used to be done was to decide, early, that they should be this or that, and early surgeries were done. That's almost completely discredited now, the trend is entirely to accept people as they are, and not try to force them into some clear gender physicality. When they are older, they may make informed choices. But that's a different phenomenon than the situation with those who are physically one gender, clearly, and presumably genetically so, and who decide to change that. Not being such a person, and not knowing any personally (yet, I'm actually working with a woman whose ex-husband, the father of her children, is now a woman), I'd really hesitate to judge them. And this is entirely different, really, from "homosexuality," and simply shows how shoving people into categories is damaging to their humanity.

How about "troll"?

[Ottava]

EDIT: And, as I keep saying, there's no point in endless 'debate' with Ottava. He's impervious to reason ...

(I'm going to take my own advice and stop posting now. This is a complete waste of time ...)

You shouldn't have posted to begin with. You were trolling. You attack me, and you can't dispute that there is a substantial amount of people, including women, that use the phrase I use. Instead, you make all sorts of absurd and idiotic claims. The only reason why you are acting so embarrassingly is because you know that there is no justification for transgender anything because it is insanity and nothing else.

[Vigilant]

EDIT: And, as I keep saying, there's no point in endless 'debate' with Ottava. He's impervious to reason ...

(I'm going to take my own advice and stop posting now. This is a complete waste of time ...)

You shouldn't have posted to begin with. You were trolling. You attack me, and you can't dispute that there is a substantial amount of people, including women, that use the phrase I use. Instead, you make all sorts of absurd and idiotic claims. The only reason why you are acting so embarrassingly is because you know that there is no justification for transgender anything because it is insanity and nothing else.

Poor, poor Jeffrey Peters...

I think you should probably stop posting about vaginas until you've actually touched one. Your (alleged) birth does not count.

You need to find an Amy Farrah Fowler as soon as possible. Your obvious sexual tension regarding TS/TV people is completely transparent and a bit disturbing. Ditto your obsessive personal issues with naked, but not pornographic, pictures of children.

Here's your TODO list Jeffrey:
1) Seek professional psychiatric help. Be honest when answering the background questions.
2) Find an analogue for Amy Farrah Fowler. Rid yourselves of your pent up sexual tension.
3) Finish your useless thesis so you can step over the PhD line in the sand.
4) Never edit anything related to wikipedia again. You are not well suited to collaborative work with others.

Your friend,
Vigilant

[Abd]

Poor, poor Jeffrey Peters...

I think you should probably stop posting about vaginas until you've actually touched one. Your (alleged) birth does not count.

You need to find an Amy Farrah Fowler as soon as possible. Your obvious sexual tension regarding TS/TV people is completely transparent and a bit disturbing. Ditto your obsessive personal issues with naked, but not pornographic, pictures of children.

Here's your TODO list Jeffrey:
1) Seek professional psychiatric help. Be honest when answering the background questions.
2) Find an analogue for Amy Farrah Fowler. Rid yourselves of your pent up sexual tension.
3) Finish your useless thesis so you can step over the PhD line in the sand.
4) Never edit anything related to wikipedia again. You are not well suited to collaborative work with others.

Of course, he can't edit Wikipedia. His edits on meta recently are amazing. See this discussion with Michael Suarez and Seth Finklestein. Ottava claims that he's for the bans because it's right. He's not quite got it there. He's for the bans because Ottava is Always Right. And because Poetlister is Bad.

Notice his rationale, it's diagnostic.

According to Hobbes, once you violate your social requirement to not harm others your protection from harm (as a result of governmental punishment) is valid. It is that simple. Freedom exists only until it meets someone else's freedom, and there is no right to use Wikipedia. If you harm people, you are gone. It is that simple. Any attempt to justify keeping those people around is justification of harming others, and no one has that right. [[User:Ottava Rima|Ottava Rima]] ([[user talk:Ottava Rima|talk]]) 23:36, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Ottava is a throwback. This is a justification for capital punishment, and against any idea of forgiveness or possibility of redemption. Even the older systems of tribal justice limited response to return of like action. Whom did Poetlister seek to ban?

It's argued that he harmed someone. What he did wasn't illegal. It may have been foolish, and it might even have been a civil tort, but far worse, in terms of actual damage, was apparently done to him. And none of that is really relevant. What he did was years ago. Some have argued that he's still pretending to be a woman. I'm still trying to figure out how this is harming someone. What, "wrongful incitement of erections?" What?

Gives the word "tort" new dimensions.

Ottava was unable to function civilly at Wikiversity. That's why he lost his tools there. He called someone a liar, without necessity -- it wasn't anyone's business at Wikiversity -- and when this was challenged, he was warned, he said, "But it's true. He's a liar." So I blocked him. Somebody had to stand up to the Ottavan Emperor. So I lost my tools for a time (immediately, because Ottava unblocked himself, revision-deleted his own block log -- cool eh, sometimes I bring this out in people, revealing what's been hidden --, then went to meta and lied to them about the situation. Yes. He lied. I don't say that very often about people. Okay, maybe he was merely delusional.). So? Ahem. I did it because it was right, and I took the consequences, and, where it counts, I was vindicated.

Steven Walling had removed Ottava's previous debate with Finklestein because it went off topic. Ottava takes it off topic in the same way, deja vu all over again. I really doubt he is long for meta. He has an open RfC there. Maybe its about time it get closed with the obvious conclusion. I've supported Poetlister on Wikiversity because he really was making positive contributions there, besides the issue of upholding local block policy. Ottava makes few positive contributions, mostly window dressing, like welcoming newcomers to meta. However, he incites a huge amount of useless debate, and he's utterly unresponsive, there is little or no redeeming value. Is there anyone who could mentor him? What I've seen is that he's been blocked, and then unblocked with no safeguards at all. It's a common error, not limited to Ottava. If you are going to unblock someone and want them to be successful, you need to watch them, given them guidance, and restrain them when they start going off the path.

Wikipedia is lousy at that, and so are a lot of Wikimedians. All or nothing. Kind of like this new idea of global bans that Ottava is fiercely promoting.

This post has been edited by Abd:

[Wikicrusher2]

So, Jeff, is it "more cruder" (sic!) to refer to "shaving the pubic mound" than the incorrect "vagina"? I don't see how it can be considered impolite to use "pubic mound" (though your priest may disagree???).

By the way, Abd, this was not a case of Ottava interpreting words' meanings too strictly, but using an inappropriate term and then saying that correcting him was being too strict regarding the meaning of the word "vagina". The general rule for him is that He Must Be Right, No Exceptions. Even when he's not... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

[Ottava]

So, Jeff, is it "more cruder" (sic!) to refer to "shaving the pubic mound" than the incorrect "vagina"? I don't see how it can be considered impolite to use "pubic mound" (though your priest may disagree???).

By the way, Abd, this was not a case of Ottava interpreting words' meanings too strictly, but using an inappropriate term and then saying that correcting him was being too strict regarding the meaning of the word "vagina". The general rule for him is that He Must Be Right, No Exceptions. Even when he's not... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

Have you ever said "pubic mound"? Are there the "public mound dialogues"? No, that is silly and the word is foul. I already showed where there were over a million hits on google with "vagina" and "shaving". A more specific phrase has over 20k hits making it clear that it most likely isn't men using the phrase. It is a colloquial use. There isn't anything "wrong", and there isn't a reason for you to go on and on.

If you don't like common usage, then go take it up in a discussion on it. It doesn't change the fact that credible psychologists have deemed TG insanity and have discontinued allowing people to get surgery and instead give them help to try and cure their problem and help them accept their birth gender.

This post has been edited by Ottava:

[carbuncle]

If you don't like common usage, then go take it up in a discussion on it. It doesn't change the fact that credible psychologists have deemed TG insanity and have discontinued allowing people to get surgery and instead give them help to try and cure their problem and help them accept their birth gender.

Ottava, you are right. Many people seem to be making the same mistake that you made. And some credible psychiatrists have deemed sexual reassignment as "madness" (I mean, they wouldn't be advising the Vatican on such matters if they weren't credible), although other equally credible psychiatrists disagree.

[Abd]

EDIT: And, as I keep saying, there's no point in endless 'debate' with Ottava. He's impervious to reason ...

(I'm going to take my own advice and stop posting now. This is a complete waste of time ...)

You shouldn't have posted to begin with. You were trolling. You attack me, and you can't dispute that there is a substantial amount of people, including women, that use the phrase I use. {{citation needed}}
Instead, you make all sorts of absurd and idiotic claims. The only reason why you are acting so embarrassingly is because you know that there is no justification for transgender anything because it is insanity and nothing else.

This is a beautiful and clear example of trolling. Ottava doesn't get it. He trolls for the responses he gets. In the work I'm doing this would be called his "act."

Respondent realizes that the conversation is a total waste of time and stops. So Ottava throws a final response, tempting her -- or anyone else -- to point out how nuts he is. He's telling a woman what language women use. While it's possible that he heard someone say "shaved her vagina" somewhere, the world is vast. That he repeated this shows a lack of familiarity with the language, and maybe the anatomy, and that was the point.

A sane person, who doesn't have a "kick me" act like Ottava, would just say, "Okay, weak usage. So?" But part of Ottava's act is that Ottava Is Always Right, which, to him, means that They are Wrong. Wrong, I tell you, and anyone who disagrees is a Total Idiot and has no right to speak in a public forum, and, if anyone has ever hurt anyone, they should be beheaded so they can't do it again. Right? Do I need to ask. After all, Ottava is Always Right.

Ottava is busy on meta telling a steward what he can and cannot do. Ottava is Right, the steward should just give up and admit it. Funny, they never do. Did this act ever work for Ottava other than to confirm his views about himself? My guess is that, once in a while, someone says, to get him to shut up, "You're right." It's the power of intermittent reinforcement. Dangerous.

Ottava, you are right.

Didn't I say so?

[Ottava]

If you don't like common usage, then go take it up in a discussion on it. It doesn't change the fact that credible psychologists have deemed TG insanity and have discontinued allowing people to get surgery and instead give them help to try and cure their problem and help them accept their birth gender.

Ottava, you are right. Many people seem to be making the same mistake that you made. And some credible psychiatrists have deemed sexual reassignment as "madness" (I mean, they wouldn't be advising the Vatican on such matters if they weren't credible), although other equally credible psychiatrists disagree.

For your last statement - why not show where? No one has, which I find odd. I'm sure some psychiatrist out there think it is fine.

However, the individual I linked to was running Johns Hopkins Psych department, which is very, very prominent and they were the first to pioneer the surgery. It is very telling when they backed down and reconsidered it.

By the way, do you think that, with the anatomy claims above, surgery can ever give you a true "penis" or "vagina"? It will always be a simulacrum, something false. You cannot switch a Y chromosome to an X or X to Y. Sure, there is the rare combinations of others, but they are a genetic defect, most of the time result in a lack of reproductability, and don't really alter a man wanting to become a woman or a woman wanting to become a man.

Why would people even be comfortable with this? Would you be comfortable if someone came up to you and said "I shouldn't have been born with this hand, it doesn't feel right, it needs to go, I need to have it chopped off"? I highly doubt you would be. We are all born as we are. The whole "gay rights" movement is based on the premise that they are born that way so we should be comfortable with them. However, TG by their very definition, are unable to be comfortable with themselves. They think surgery and radically altering themselves will make it all better? That is exactly what plastic surgery addicts think, what anorexic think, and what anyone with any of these body dysmorphia type of disorders think.

Instead of celebrating these people and saying how great they are for hating themselves so much, we should instead try to help them accept themselves. They need support to fix their problem, not people saying "oh, this is great because it fits in with my political ideology, so mutilate yourself as much as you want".

[SB_Johnny]

Pubic area, pubic region, bikini area, "down there", etc, etc, etc. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

Ottava might be better off sticking to less anatomical, not-so-vulgar terms like "yaya", perhaps. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif)

[that one guy]

If you don't like common usage, then go take it up in a discussion on it. It doesn't change the fact that credible psychologists have deemed TG insanity and have discontinued allowing people to get surgery and instead give them help to try and cure their problem and help them accept their birth gender.

Ottava, you are right. Many people seem to be making the same mistake that you made. And some credible psychiatrists have deemed sexual reassignment as "madness" (I mean, they wouldn't be advising the Vatican on such matters if they weren't credible), although other equally credible psychiatrists disagree.

For your last statement - why not show where? No one has, which I find odd. I'm sure some psychiatrist out there think it is fine.

However, the individual I linked to was running Johns Hopkins Psych department, which is very, very prominent and they were the first to pioneer the surgery. It is very telling when they backed down and reconsidered it.

By the way, do you think that, with the anatomy claims above, surgery can ever give you a true "penis" or "vagina"? It will always be a simulacrum, something false. You cannot switch a Y chromosome to an X or X to Y. Sure, there is the rare combinations of others, but they are a genetic defect, most of the time result in a lack of reproductability, and don't really alter a man wanting to become a woman or a woman wanting to become a man.

Why would people even be comfortable with this? Would you be comfortable if someone came up to you and said "I shouldn't have been born with this hand, it doesn't feel right, it needs to go, I need to have it chopped off"? I highly doubt you would be. We are all born as we are. The whole "gay rights" movement is based on the premise that they are born that way so we should be comfortable with them. However, TG by their very definition, are unable to be comfortable with themselves. They think surgery and radically altering themselves will make it all better? That is exactly what plastic surgery addicts think, what anorexic think, and what anyone with any of these body dysmorphia type of disorders think.

Instead of celebrating these people and saying how great they are for hating themselves so much, we should instead try to help them accept themselves. They need support to fix their problem, not people saying "oh, this is great because it fits in with my political ideology, so mutilate yourself as much as you want".

tl;dr: they see me trollin, they hating

[carbuncle]

For your last statement - why not show where? No one has, which I find odd. I'm sure some psychiatrist out there think it is fine.

However, the individual I linked to was running Johns Hopkins Psych department, which is very, very prominent and they were the first to pioneer the surgery. It is very telling when they backed down and reconsidered it.

By the way, do you think that, with the anatomy claims above, surgery can ever give you a true "penis" or "vagina"? It will always be a simulacrum, something false. You cannot switch a Y chromosome to an X or X to Y. Sure, there is the rare combinations of others, but they are a genetic defect, most of the time result in a lack of reproductability, and don't really alter a man wanting to become a woman or a woman wanting to become a man.

Why would people even be comfortable with this? Would you be comfortable if someone came up to you and said "I shouldn't have been born with this hand, it doesn't feel right, it needs to go, I need to have it chopped off"? I highly doubt you would be. We are all born as we are. The whole "gay rights" movement is based on the premise that they are born that way so we should be comfortable with them. However, TG by their very definition, are unable to be comfortable with themselves. They think surgery and radically altering themselves will make it all better? That is exactly what plastic surgery addicts think, what anorexic think, and what anyone with any of these body dysmorphia type of disorders think.

Instead of celebrating these people and saying how great they are for hating themselves so much, we should instead try to help them accept themselves. They need support to fix their problem, not people saying "oh, this is great because it fits in with my political ideology, so mutilate yourself as much as you want".

I think everyone here knows that there is little point in attempting to debate you using things like "facts" or "arguments", because you just see right through those foolish rhetorical devices. For my part, I'm interested in your views on gender.

Surgically constructed genitalia are obviously not the same as biologically formed genitalia, so I'm not quite sure how to answer your question. If a woman has surgery for breast cancer and then has a surgical breast reconstruction, does she have a "true" breast or a simulacrum? If it's not a "true" breast, then why would she go through with that surgery? Could there be something else at work besides simple genetics?

[Ottava]

I think everyone here knows that there is little point in attempting to debate you using things like "facts" or "arguments", because you just see right through those foolish rhetorical devices. For my part, I'm interested in your views on gender.

Surgically constructed genitalia are obviously not the same as biologically formed genitalia, so I'm not quite sure how to answer your question. If a woman has surgery for breast cancer and then has a surgical breast reconstruction, does she have a "true" breast or a simulacrum? If it's not a "true" breast, then why would she go through with that surgery? Could there be something else at work besides simple genetics?

We call them "fake breasts" when a woman gets implants for cosmetic reasons, so why would they suddenly become "real" when we feel bad for the person? That should tell you that it is more PC than actuality. The double standards of descriptive language should key you into the problem.

And why should we say that someone with a penis is a "female" anyway? Why should we let them demand rights? In Maryland, the Transgender community tried to pass a law that would allow them access to female bathrooms, showers, etc. The feminist community is all up in arms now when they realized that someone merely has to say "yeah, I'm a girl" and that is enough to give them every single right a female has. That would violate privacy in bathrooms, expose those under age to predators, separate out female dorms, allow men onto female athletic teams, etc. It effective undermines all of the feminist progress to establish equality by giving people who never had to deal with the problems of being a female the benefits that are intended to make up for those problems.

This is akin to allowing someone to tattoo their body to a dark color and letting them claim they are African American for benefits while claiming "deep down, I feel like I am actually black and should have been born that way".

[carbuncle]

We call them "fake breasts" when a woman gets implants for cosmetic reasons, so why would they suddenly become "real" when we feel bad for the person? That should tell you that it is more PC than actuality. The double standards of descriptive language should key you into the problem.

Sorry, I should have been more clear. I wasn't referring to the use of breast implants. The reconstruction methods used in many cases do not involve implants and are therefore more similar to the surgical construction of genitalia. The resulting breasts are "non-functional" in the sense that they can not produce milk. Are those "true" breasts?

And why should we say that someone with a penis is a "female" anyway? Why should we let them demand rights? In Maryland, the Transgender community tried to pass a law that would allow them access to female bathrooms, showers, etc. The feminist community is all up in arms now when they realized that someone merely has to say "yeah, I'm a girl" and that is enough to give them every single right a female has. That would violate privacy in bathrooms, expose those under age to predators, separate out female dorms, allow men onto female athletic teams, etc. It effective undermines all of the feminist progress to establish equality by giving people who never had to deal with the problems of being a female the benefits that are intended to make up for those problems.

This is akin to allowing someone to tattoo their body to a dark color and letting them claim they are African American for benefits while claiming "deep down, I feel like I am actually black and should have been born that way".

So in the fantasy world that you inhabit, there are special benefits for women and racial minorities?

[Ottava]

We call them "fake breasts" when a woman gets implants for cosmetic reasons, so why would they suddenly become "real" when we feel bad for the person? That should tell you that it is more PC than actuality. The double standards of descriptive language should key you into the problem.

Sorry, I should have been more clear. I wasn't referring to the use of breast implants. The reconstruction methods used in many cases do not involve implants and are therefore more similar to the surgical construction of genitalia. The resulting breasts are "non-functional" in the sense that they can not produce milk. Are those "true" breasts?

If you are adding things, it is a fake boob. There are many people who have cosmetic surgery with real skin added, but it isn't theirs and it is fake. Plastic surgery regardless of the adding of "plastic" as you know it is still fake.

And why should we say that someone with a penis is a "female" anyway? Why should we let them demand rights? In Maryland, the Transgender community tried to pass a law that would allow them access to female bathrooms, showers, etc. The feminist community is all up in arms now when they realized that someone merely has to say "yeah, I'm a girl" and that is enough to give them every single right a female has. That would violate privacy in bathrooms, expose those under age to predators, separate out female dorms, allow men onto female athletic teams, etc. It effective undermines all of the feminist progress to establish equality by giving people who never had to deal with the problems of being a female the benefits that are intended to make up for those problems.

This is akin to allowing someone to tattoo their body to a dark color and letting them claim they are African American for benefits while claiming "deep down, I feel like I am actually black and should have been born that way".

So in the fantasy world that you inhabit, there are special benefits for women and racial minorities?

Never heard of Affirmative Action? Title IX? We've made fun of pretenders who wish to take advantage of these benefits. They are benefits designed to off set social hindrances, and white men shouldn't be allowed to merely claim fanciful things to attain them.

This post has been edited by Ottava:

[SB_Johnny]

Could a mod please split off Ottava's trans-bashing to somewhere else (preferably a nice dark room filled with grues) as it is entirely off-topic? Thanks.

Actually, maybe the whole kit and kaboodle discussion of what to call body parts as well.

What the heck was this thread about? Do I really need to go 2.5 pages back to find out? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)

[that one guy]

Could a mod please split off Ottava's trans-bashing to somewhere else (preferably a nice dark room filled with grues) as it is entirely off-topic? Thanks.

Actually, maybe the whole kit and kaboodle discussion of what to call body parts as well.

What the heck was this thread about? Do I really need to go 2.5 pages back to find out? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)

I find your avatar really fitting given the current convo. It was a survey FireyAngel was doing of people who pose as women on WP who are biologically male yet not transgender.

[A Horse With No Name]

At this point in the discussion, may I introduce my choice to replace "The Star-Spangled Banner" as the national anthem of the USA:

[carbuncle]

Ottava, yo have made me curious about something. Can someone who has had breast implants get into Heaven™? What about someone who has had sex reassignment surgery?

[Abd]

By the way, do you think that, with the anatomy claims above, surgery can ever give you a true "penis" or "vagina"? It will always be a simulacrum, something false. You cannot switch a Y chromosome to an X or X to Y. Sure, there is the rare combinations of others, but they are a genetic defect, most of the time result in a lack of reproductability, and don't really alter a man wanting to become a woman or a woman wanting to become a man.

Ottava is using the bankrupt language of "defect." It's fascist, at root. What's been settled on is that these things are genetic variations. Variation is part of the evolutionary system, variations are more or less functional, as to specific situation. What is a defect in one situation may be a benefit in another. Is the genetic variation of sickle-cell anemia a "defect"? Depends on the environment!

And what about homosexuality. Ottava is using "lack of reproductability" -- as to individuals -- as if this was intrinsically a defect. But various species have members, individuals, who do not reproduce, but who do contribute to the survival of the species. Ottava is reflecting an old church argument, but without the gravitas of the church, nor with its authority.

What is a "true" penis or vagina? "True" is an abstraction, when used in this way. It's a judgment, not a reality. It's a matter of convention, i.e., usage. And Ottava makes up his own conventions, and claims that they are "true."

The original topic here had to do with non-transexual, non-transvestite males who post as women on WP. Ottava, with some assistance, turned it into being about himself, really, the usual. He trolls for this. There is an apparent transvestite male, that certain "guy," who certainly "posted as a woman." Ottava hates the deviants from his norms (as do many of us). But he's highly deviant himself, that's the irony.

This post has been edited by Abd:

[Ottava]

Ottava, yo have made me curious about something. Can someone who has had breast implants get into Heaven™? What about someone who has had sex reassignment surgery?

Heaven in the Catholic sense requires a mental understanding of God's love, which would be demonstrated through appreciation for God's gifts. Mutilation of the self is the same problems with suicide - desecration of God's gift - i.e. you reject what you were given. Now, there are some who were able to be sainted for a "suicide" like act, which doesn't mean any giving up is wrong. However, it is the motivation for destroying God's gift.

Merely saying "I don't like how I look, therefore I need to have to keep changing myself" is an obsession with the material and a lack of proper priorities. If you are merely living to help others, to do good, to love one another, you don't need to alter your body, get tattoos, enlarge your breasts, cut off your penis, etc.

If someone is too busy focusing on how they hate themselves and obsessing with it, how can they think about God or virtue? That goes with any obsession. So to answer your question, can someone with a sex change get into Heaven, the chances are that they wont be focusing on such things nor truly care enough. This is not talking about people who may have two different sex organs or the rest, but about people who willingly change without anything like that.

After all, there are many people who have problems that they feel they are born wrong with - blindness, loss of limbs, etc - but i they start rejecting their body, loathing themselves, etc. over their condition then that is a problem. Our whole approach to special needs children, for example, is that they are already perfect. They aren't "handicapped". They are beautiful, wonderful, and great, and it is obvious that someone with, say, down syndrome has more of a legitimate grief with how they were born than someone who merely doesn't like being able to pee standing up, yet the thing about most of those children is that they are capable of accepting themselves.

[SB_Johnny]

Could a mod please split off Ottava's trans-bashing to somewhere else (preferably a nice dark room filled with grues) as it is entirely off-topic? Thanks.

Actually, maybe the whole kit and kaboodle discussion of what to call body parts as well.

What the heck was this thread about? Do I really need to go 2.5 pages back to find out? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)

I find your avatar really fitting given the current convo. It was a survey FireyAngel was doing of people who pose as women on WP who are biologically male yet not transgender.

Wait, you mean Reagan had a female persona on the internet*? Or arpanet**? Or maybe Margaret Thatcher was his sockpuppet***?

*Oh nevermind, Al Gore hadn't invented it yet.
**Look it up.
***Actually, that kinda make sense... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

This post has been edited by SB_Johnny:

[carbuncle]

Heaven in the Catholic sense requires a mental understanding of God's love, which would be demonstrated through appreciation for God's gifts. Mutilation of the self is the same problems with suicide - desecration of God's gift - i.e. you reject what you were given. Now, there are some who were able to be sainted for a "suicide" like act, which doesn't mean any giving up is wrong. However, it is the motivation for destroying God's gift.

So, then, no, you can't get into Heaven™ if you have breast implants. Or if you have had sexual reassignment surgery. Is that right?

Unsurprisingly, I'd like to go back to my earlier example of a woman who has had a mastectomy due to breast cancer and has a breast reconstruction (using only her own tissue, incidentally). Would she get into Heaven™? Or is she, too, "desecrating God's gift"?

[Abd]

If you are adding things, it is a fake boob. There are many people who have cosmetic surgery with real skin added, but it isn't theirs and it is fake. Plastic surgery regardless of the adding of "plastic" as you know it is still fake.

Ottava is always asserting the primacy of language -- his language -- over underlying realities. What's the function of a breast? i doubt that he's got a clue as to the variety of functions. Specifically, what's the function of size? Rather obviously, it is attractive to some males. If a person finds a mate, someone whose life enhances their own, because of an implant, was this a "fake breast"? Conversely, if a person has breast reduction surgery, which is pretty common, does this mean that the breasts are less real?

It's all about words for Ottava. An image above was presented of a woman with a T-shirt, and, yes, she was obviously cold. Does Ottava recognize this? Does he understand the effect of such an image? Does that effect depend on whether or not there some silicone or whatever underneath the skin?

None of this really means anything to Ottava, he's only about being Right, which, for him, is about language, the meanings of words, with Ottava hewing to his Right meanings. Everyone else is wrong.

Talk about dysfunctional! The purpose of language is communication, not being "right." If the words communicate, they are functional. If not, not. What's communicated? Now, ''that's an interesting question," eh?

There is more communication in that wet T-shirt image than in an entire topic here. Much more. A picture is worth 1000 words. Often more. A real visual perception in real life, incomparable. Thanks, Horsey.

And why should we say that someone with a penis is a "female" anyway? Why should we let them demand rights?

Ottava does stick his foot in it, doesn't he? The very question shows "us" and "them." They are the deviants, they are not worthy of being considered human. On meta, he's really showing that he'd support the death penalty for "harming people." No forgiveness, no redemption. Great for a supposed Christian, eh?

In Maryland, the Transgender community tried to pass a law that would allow them access to female bathrooms, showers, etc.

OMG. And how precisely is anyone going to know to be offended? Do people stand around trying to judge whether that person is male or female? If a person looks obviously male, and is in a women's room, it will raise hackles. There are "biological women" who are undergoing hormonal therapy to change gender. These women report that they become very male in their attitudes toward women. That they were horrified to find themselves doing what they'd thought was so offensive when men did it, staring at women, etc. Which bathroom should they go into, or are they to be excluded from bathrooms. I've known some women who very much looked like men, and passed as men. What bathroom should they go into?

Ottava has no experience with the real issues, but he sits making judgments ex cathedral. With no authority, just his own arrogance.

The feminist community is all up in arms now when they realized that someone merely has to say "yeah, I'm a girl" and that is enough to give them every single right a female has.

Yup. They "say it" by looking like it. Are we going to require ID of people to use the bathroom. Will the driver's license people be required to verify gender? I think Ottava might love that we all have to carry IDs certifying to our "true identity." You know, he used to get a person blocked for using his real name.

That would violate privacy in bathrooms, expose those under age to predators, separate out female dorms, allow men onto female athletic teams, etc. It effective undermines all of the feminist progress to establish equality by giving people who never had to deal with the problems of being a female the benefits that are intended to make up for those problems.

False problem. You can find people who object to almost anything. It proves nothing. Has anyone ever been prosecuted for pretending to be a woman and going into a women's room, when the pretense was not a part of an actual scheme to harm, i.e., was a personal identity? Or vice-versa, a woman into a man's room?

If I put on a dress, made myself up to be a particularly ugly woman, which is probably all I could manage, and otherwise making myself appear as a woman, and walked into a men's room, I'd expect to be arrested for disturbing the peace! Social conventions are about appearance, about what actually would cause disruption.

You'd think that Ottava would have noticed that most people in public restrooms don't look closely at the other people, it's very rude. There is no real problem with this, it's been made up. Ottava is pretending that gender shifting causes some horrible social problem, by frustrating our Natural Right to Know the True Gender of Everyone in the Bathroom. Personally, when I'm there, I have other business to attend to. Maybe Ottava stares, trying to find Offenders. That could explain a lot.

This is akin to allowing someone to tattoo their body to a dark color and letting them claim they are African American for benefits while claiming "deep down, I feel like I am actually black and should have been born that way".

If it's fraud, it's fraud. I'm not convinced that I support affirmative action, which creates this issue. Race is not a biological reality. (Let's see what Ottava does with that1). It's a complex question, because there is familial disadvantage, historical harm that has been passed down.

If a person routinely looks "black," then they may suffer from general discrimination. To remedy this, certain remedies might be appropriate, but if these remedies are so much benefit that a person would want to fake being black in order to get them, something has gone drastically wrong. I have a black daughter, and she's suffered discrimination, I'm pretty convinced, and there is no way that this is going to be compensated by some "benefit," other than the fact that she's astonishingly beautiful. She's got amazing tribal markings on her eyes, some guy iisn't going to have a chance!

What I'd have wanted for her was institutional caution against discrimination, not some special benefit.

The thinking behind the discrimination was thinking that is like Ottava's. That some "races" are more likely to be defective, but it would never be said that way, not any more. Rather, what we saw was an assumption that she was "just that way," whereas with a white kid, we knew, the school's problems with her would have been considered remediable. After all, you know how "they" are. Too bad nothing can be done, some of "them" are just that way. Of course we love her, she's a wonderful child, we are sorry to see her be unable to attend, but I'm afraid she has problems we can't deal with, some children like her are just too far gone. It's not her fault that she's one of "them."

This was a four-year old girl, just through major upheavals, coming from a different culture with radically different norms, and actually doing quite well, all things considered. In a different school, no problem. It was surprising. The problem school was highly progressive, on the surface, a research institution affiliated with a university. They did not follow their own policies, which provided clear guidance on how to handle the situation that had arisen. We could have fought it, but then realized we didn't want our daughter exposed to the attitudes.

Racism is not dead, but it's gone into hiding.

[that one guy]

Could a mod please split off Ottava's trans-bashing to somewhere else (preferably a nice dark room filled with grues) as it is entirely off-topic? Thanks.

Actually, maybe the whole kit and kaboodle discussion of what to call body parts as well.

What the heck was this thread about? Do I really need to go 2.5 pages back to find out? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)

I find your avatar really fitting given the current convo. It was a survey FireyAngel was doing of people who pose as women on WP who are biologically male yet not transgender.

Wait, you mean Reagan had a female persona on the internet*? Or arpanet**? Or maybe Margaret Thatcher was his sockpuppet***?

*Oh nevermind, Al Gore hadn't invented it yet.
**Look it up.
***Actually, that kinda make sense... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

I was hinting at the facepalm and the "Aw Jeez, not THIS shit again" part.

[The Adversary]

Ottava, yo have made me curious about something. Can someone who has had breast implants get into Heaven™? What about someone who has had sex reassignment surgery?

Heaven in the Catholic sense requires a mental understanding of God's love, which would be demonstrated through appreciation for God's gifts. Mutilation of the self is the same problems with suicide - desecration of God's gift - i.e. you reject what you were given. Now, there are some who were able to be sainted for a "suicide" like act, which doesn't mean any giving up is wrong. However, it is the motivation for destroying God's gift.

Merely saying "I don't like how I look, therefore I need to have to keep changing myself" is an obsession with the material and a lack of proper priorities. If you are merely living to help others, to do good, to love one another, you don't need to alter your body, get tattoos, enlarge your breasts, cut off your penis, etc.

Fascinating. What about this, then: an old friend of mine is thinking of doing a breast-reduction-operation. I asked her: she wears bras size 36H, (and she is not obese). To put it bluntly: she is huge. And it is all natural, God's gift, if you like. My friend deeply wish God had been a bit less generous: it hurts her back, it is almost impossible to get bras that fit, and any running is out of the question. This for a start.

Now, is she "desecrating God's gift" if she gets a breast-reduction? Seriously?

PS: to Horsey: no, I will not introduce you (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

[A Horse With No Name]

PS: to Horsey: no, I will not introduce you (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/angry.gif)

[SB_Johnny]

I was hinting at the facepalm and the "Aw Jeez, not THIS shit again" part.

Yeah, but it's hard not to imagine he and Ms. Thatcher swapping undies at summit meetings. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

[Ottava]

Heaven in the Catholic sense requires a mental understanding of God's love, which would be demonstrated through appreciation for God's gifts. Mutilation of the self is the same problems with suicide - desecration of God's gift - i.e. you reject what you were given. Now, there are some who were able to be sainted for a "suicide" like act, which doesn't mean any giving up is wrong. However, it is the motivation for destroying God's gift.

So, then, no, you can't get into Heaven™ if you have breast implants. Or if you have had sexual reassignment surgery. Is that right?

Unsurprisingly, I'd like to go back to my earlier example of a woman who has had a mastectomy due to breast cancer and has a breast reconstruction (using only her own tissue, incidentally). Would she get into Heaven™? Or is she, too, "desecrating God's gift"?

If she did it purely for cosmetic reasons, then yes. It is all about materialism and your focus in all things. Suffering is not an excuse to say "f you to God" and then expect to get into Heaven.



The Adversary

And it is all natural, God's gift, if you like. My friend deeply wish God had been a bit less generous: it hurts her back, it is almost impossible to get bras that fit, and any running is out of the question. This for a start.

Now, is she "desecrating God's gift" if she gets a breast-reduction? Seriously?

As I said, it is all about the reasons why. If your reason is "I hate how I am" then yes, it is a problem. You should never have surgery because you hate a part of yourself.

This post has been edited by Ottava:

[Malleus]

You should never have surgery because you hate a part of yourself.

That's interesting. Would you include dental surgery in that? I'm thinking about things like capping to improve the regularity of your teeth. What about wart removal? Or are you one of those like Oliver Cromwell who believes that we are what we are, warts and all?

This post has been edited by Malleus:

[Rhindle]

I got my wisdom teeth pulled. I'm doomed. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/noooo.gif)

[lonza leggiera]

Ottava, you're reading what you want the articles to say, not what they actually say. It's the classic modern-conservative problem.

As for what's clear and what isn't, the first article says, in paragraph 2, "The prevailing theory at the time was that while sex was genetically determined at birth, the concept of gender was culturally shaped and malleable and that being female or male were interchangeable." It seems more likely to me that by "madness," he's referring to the fact that this was the prevailing theory, and not necessarily a specific reference to the mental states of SRS patients.
.....

Your interpretation of what McHugh might have meant seems to be based on a reading only of the NARTH news item which Ottava linked to. If you read the complete article—which Ottava seems to have been curiously reluctant to provide a direct link to—you will find that your interpretation isn't possible. The original article isn't a "Johns Hopkins report" as Ottava apparently wants to classify it, but an article[preceding struck through comment was apparently a misunderstanding on my part—see below] was one McHugh wrote for the conservative religious magazine First Things, whose publisher's stated purpose is "to advance a religiously informed public philosophy for the ordering of society." The relevant quotations, with sufficient context to show the incorrectness of your proposed interpretation, are:

We saw the results as demonstrating that just as these men enjoyed cross-dressing as women before the operation so they enjoyed cross-living after it. But they were no better in their psychological integration or any easier to live with. With these facts in hand I concluded that Hopkins was fundamentally cooperating with a mental illness.
....
As for the adults who came to us claiming to have discovered their “true” sexual identity and to have heard about sex-change operations, we psychiatrists have been distracted from studying the causes and natures of their mental misdirections by preparing them for surgery and for a life in the other sex. We have wasted scientific and technical resources and damaged our professional credibility by collaborating with madness rather than trying to study, cure, and ultimately prevent it.

You're apparently right, however, that Ottava has misread something into these articles which neither of them say. In neither of them can I find any justification for Ottava's assertion that "Johns Hopkins stopped sex changes because they determined that it was a mental disease" (I presume the "it" here is referring to gender dysphoria, the condition which sex reassignment surgery was supposed to be treating). Presumably McHugh realised—as Ottava apparently does not—that most of his colleagues would regard surgery as a perfectly legitimate treatment for certain types of mental illness—provided only that it was effective. The reason McHugh gives for the termination of sex reassignment surgery at Johns Hopkins is not that the condition being treated was a mental illness, but that the treatment was supposedly shown to have been ineffective.

Judgmentally: Jeff, please spare us the Catholic "social engineering".

It has nothing to do with religion and all to do with psychology.

There are couple of interesting items available on-line which indicate that McHugh's religious convictions might have had more influence on some of his supposedly scientific conclusions than Ottava is willing to admit[apologies to Ottava for the preceding gratuitous speculation] the above-quoted assertion would suggest. The first is an interview recorded on the occasion of his participation as a plenary speaker in the 2010 Mere Anglican conference, where he acknowledges that "biblically based" societal expectations were "part and parcel of [his] commitment to really what amounts to loving relationships", and deprecates homosexuality as "erroneous desire".

The second is an article McHugh wrote for the March 28, 2005 issue of the weekly Standard, in which he serves up several of the easily refuted blatant falsehoods circulated by religiously conservative antievolutionists as supposedly showing up the deficiencies of evolutionary theory (which, like them, McHugh keeps referring to as "Darwinism").

This post has been edited by lonza leggiera:

[Malleus]

I got my wisdom teeth pulled. I'm doomed. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/noooo.gif)

I'm doomed as well, as four of my front teeth are capped. It made a big difference to my smile though, and a big difference to the way I felt about myself. Fuck what God thinks.

[Ottava]

You should never have surgery because you hate a part of yourself.

That's interesting. Would you include dental surgery in that? I'm thinking about things like capping to improve the regularity of your teeth. What about wart removal? Or are you one of those like Oliver Cromwell who believes that we are what we are, warts and all?

If you are ripping out your teeth because you think they are awful or evil, then yes, I would include it. If you are change your teeth to help you eat, then no.

Vanity, vanity, all is vanity.

It is all about your justifications.


lonza leggiera

If you read the complete article—which Ottava seems to have been curiously reluctant to provide a direct link to—you will find that your interpretation isn't possible. The original article isn't a "Johns Hopkins report" as Ottava apparently wants to classify it, but an article McHugh wrote for the conservative religious magazine First Things

Except no. I reported the Johns Hopkins stopping sex change operations. I linked to Johns Hopkins too which had an article on their site.

The quote/extract later from the conservative article was to show that Somey was wrong to think McHugh was not 100% against sex changes.


It is funny how you claim I misread yet you blatantly ignored the John Hopkins piece.

It was clearly right here, but since you are making up everything else, you would obviously deny that it was put there or even existed. Of course. How could I expect anything less from your wonderful track record.

I do love how you say that McHugh is informed my religion (as if it was a bad thing) by using examples after he made the changes at Johns Hopkins. Instead, it is more obvious that he got the speaking gigs/articles publication opportunities after his action and making his stance, and that he was speaking to interested groups.