QUOTE(Ottava @ Wed 9th November 2011, 2:46pm)
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"?