Observations and inanities by a second-shift assistant supervisor in the Puppy-Grinding division of the Evil Atheist Conspiracy® (our motto: "Sure it's cruel, but think of the jobs!"), your host, Brent Rasmussen.
That's what I don't get.
A friend sent me a link to this NYT post by Timothy Egan, about the historical aspects of the latest fundie Mormon debacle in Texas:
Watching the polygamists in West Texas come into the sunlight of the 21st century has been jarring, making you feel like a voyeur of some weird historical episode.
You see these 1870 Stepford wives with the braided buns and long dresses, these men with their low monotones and pious, seeming disregard for the law on child sex — and wonder: who opened the time capsule?
It's a bit interesting, but also a little bizarre. No, I'm not talking about the polygamous practices of the Mormons, either historically or in this current manifestation. I'm talking about this passage early on in the post:
Religion has always been about faith and a certain degree of mythology. It’s pointless to argue whether the Red Sea actually parted, or if Jesus turned water into wine to keep a wedding party going, or if the freezing of the Mississippi River was one of the miracles that allowed early Mormons to flee persecution and build a theocracy in the desert.
And he then goes on to talk about how what the Mormons practiced in the early years, and what this small sect is practicing now, is little more than rationalization for the worldly desires of the leaders of that religion.
Excuse me?
Can somebody please explain the difference to me? Why is it "pointless" to argue about whether or not the miracles of biblical times happened, but then to go on and mock the absurdities of the 'modern miracles' of 19th century Mormonism?
This is what I don't get about 'mainstream' religion - how believers can laugh or shake their heads or whatever over the ridiculous in some recent sect (or the "penis snatching" insanity of my previous post), and yet buy into the outlandish claims of their own religion. I just don't get it.
Jim Downey
Bookmark/Search this post with:
Gender reassignment revisited
I was thinking this morning about our conversation here on this thread and a few comments / questions occurred to me. I am drawing some comparisons again, I'm not sure if you will find them fallacious but they seem somewhat apt to me.
For those of you who felt that undertaking gender reassignment procedures in children is a good idea, what would you say to the suggestion that instead of changing the physical nature of the assignee's body, they devote an equal amount of resources to changing the persons mind about needing the surgery in the first place? It seems that it would be easier to change the mind than the body, considering the number of deconverted Christians and converted atheists that abound, not to mention those who have undergone such surgery in the past changing their mind and switching back to their former gender.
Now, what if 'racial reassignment surgery' was possible? Fantasize a moment if you will, if it was possible through manipulating DNA or some such that you could change a white person to black or vice versa? If this person felt that had always been another race, despite having the skin pigmentation or other features of a different race, would you feel that it was okay for such a person to undergo racial reassignment procedures? Why or why not?
And finally, how do you feel about having the power to select or breed a human for specific traits, as some say we will eventually be able to do? To ensure a male or female child, with the parent's choice of hair and eye color, and perhaps even skin?
Do you see any difference between gender and racial reassignment, if both procedures were technologically possible, equally available, and at the same cost?
Actually ...
The suggestion that some sort of invasive mind-change should have equal argumentative value with the current idea of invasive body-change was a thought-provoking point.
...
Racial reassignment ... eh. Given my view of the unrealness of race, I wouldn't have any more problem with it than I do with people who get tattoos.
Heh. I'll bet we'd be surprised with the actual end result. Some "black" people would opt to be "white." But LOTS of "white" people would choose one shade or another of rich, deep "black." And in a generation, there would be no more racial divide.
Breeding humans for traits: We do this already, in a minor way, with genetic counseling for parents carrying Tay-Sachs disease, etc. So apparently the BASIC idea is already accepted.
If parents had the choice, should they be allowed to deliberately choose higher IQs for their kids, or stronger hearts, or better eyesight? You bet.
Should they be able to choose traits for their kids such as a "cute" lisp, "sweet little" midget bodies, or "precious" Downs syndrome? Hell no.
Not a surprise
Not really. Black is hip and cool these days, white is old and stale. I would venture to guess that you'd have far more whites choosing to be black than any other racial reassignment, at least in the United States.
Is counseling people and helping them deal with issues an invasive mind change? How do we help people who can't afford gender reassignment, if not with counseling (unless we are going opt for full medical care for everyone to include voluntary and cosmetic procedures?) What if someone's religious beliefs forbid them from undertaking gender reassignment? Would counseling them to drop firmly held religious beliefs be considered an invasive mind-change?
Why do you keep ignoring this point?
As has been pointed out by me at least three times, and some others have as well, there apparently is an effort made to change the child's mind before the gender reassignment surgery: it's called counseling and psychological evaluation. I haven't personally heard of anyone changing their gender then later changing their mind, but I suppose it's possible. I'd just bet it's pretty rare.
I wonder how you would go about changing someone's race? If it were possible to do, I suppose I would support it for those who went through counseling and psychological evaluation and it was determined to be better to allow them to change their race than to make them remain the race they are. It's kind of a moot point until there's at least some feasibility to such a procedure.
I don't have a problem with people wanting "designer" children. We have this romantic ideal that parents should love their children no matter what, but some simply don't. Some people are too shallow for that, but unless we're going to start denying those people the right to have children at all (which I would be in favor of, personally), why not let them design the child they'd rather have? If they will love and raise a blue-eyed female better than a brown-eyed male, isn't it better for society over all if they can have the child they want?
Rob Miles
--
There are only 10 types of people in the world;
those who understand binary and those who don't.
Ignore?
Rob,
I'm not ignoring the fact that the children in the Boston program are undergoing counseling, or have undergone counseling. Although I personally haven't sat in on any of the sessions, and have not read any articles that discuss such therapy in any detail, the meaning I take from it is that they are counseling them along the lines of 'Are you sure this is what you want?' Asking probing questions to see if they REALLY think they're a different gender in their mind than their body displays. Counseling them about the effects of the surgery, possible repercussions, the impact it will have on their lives later, etc. This type of counseling wouldn't try to deter them from it as much as make sure they know what they're getting into in the first place.
The counseling I'm referring to in my example is counseling that as it's objective isn't to confirm that they need such a procedure, but to show them that it isn't necessary in the first place. Using therapy to help them accept what nature has dealt them and learning to live and cope with the different feelings and overcoming the idea that they something is 'wrong' with them.
Of course it's entirely possible that counseling will cover both sides. It would be interesting to see how many kids who enter the program actually change their mind after receiving counseling.
Are you serious?
Are you really suggesting that the best counseling for those who have already exhibiting self-destructive behavior because of their gender identity problems is something along the lines of "Look, kid, you're a boy, you'll always be a boy, now learn to live with it"? I suppose you'd also tell him that he's not really attracted to other boys, it's all in his head, and to go get himself a girlfriend and act like all the other boys. Play football or something, right?
I imagine more kids changed their minds after counseling than wound up regretting the surgery once it was performed. The whole point of the counseling and psychological evaluation would be to help the child determine (and possibly determine despite the child's wishes) if the surgery is really necessary. I'd bet the overwhelming majority of the kids who actually are allowed to undergo this surgery are as sure of their wanting this as they will ever be of anything in their whole lives.
What I'd be interested in is the kids who are denied the surgery, and how they fared later in life. If I were going to bet money on which kid would be better adjusted (seriously, does anyone know of a bookie I could contact on this?) I'd go with the one who underwent the intense counseling and was allowed to have the surgery rather than the one who probably needed it and was denied.
Rob Miles
--
There are only 10 types of people in the world;
those who understand binary and those who don't.
What's with the hostility?
Maybe it's just me, but I'm picking up some hostility, lol. Look, I'm not protesting in the streets of Boston to prevent kids from changing their sex organs, I'm not writing Congress in a mad rage about the travesty of it all, I'm not citing Scripture saying this is evil and against God. I'm asking questions here just to learn about how you and others see this issue, among others.
Your description of the kind of counseling I used in the second example is inaccurate and a strawman. How did people who wanted to switch genders deal with this issue before the miracle of modern medicine? People receive counseling all the time to help them deal with things they cannot change.
Furthermore, stop putting words in my mouth. You have no idea what I'd say to someone in this situation, or what I would suggest. The inferences you are drawing from the questions I am asking are inaccurate.
Finally, just because we're discussing this issue on the Internet and not face to face is no reason to be hostile, even if you perceive there is some disagreement.
Yea, it's just you
I'm not being hostile, Sudo; we're having a discussion in which we disagree. If we were face-to-face, you'd see that I'm being pretty amicable, even if you don't like what I'm saying.
I don't think my interpretation of your preferred method of counseling as you presented it in your reply to me was all that far off. It sure sounds a lot like "deal with it because you can't change it" to me. But maybe I'm wrong, and what you really want is the child to receive counseling along the lines of "let's see if we can address this without the life-changing surgery."
What makes you think these children aren't receiving this type of counseling? Did you actually read the article you were referring to, or did you read the by-line "A Doctor helps children change their gender" and jump to conclusions? (No, I'm not trying to be hostile here; I think it's a legitimate question.) I think some of your misconceptions of what's going on here would be cleared up if you read it all (
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2008/03/30/qa_with_norm...)
It's pretty clear from the article that these types of surgery aren't occurring as often as I believe you think they are. Children aren't lining up around the corner waiting to have bits cut off and pieces added. And Dr. Spack does work to make certain that it's what the children really need (not just want) before performing the surgery, and he's only seeing them after they've gone through extensive counseling with other professionals.
I've read back through the past two postings, and I will apologize for the additional words I did indeed put in your mouth. In prior postings in this thread you've said things that I interpreted as objecting to children exhibiting homosexual leanings, but that doesn't necessarily translate to your speaking to a child as harshly as I indicated you would.
Rob Miles
--
There are only 10 types of people in the world;
those who understand binary and those who don't.
By the way
I've thoroughly enjoyed the back and forth commentary with everyone on this thread. I like being exposed to different view points. I appreciate everyone avoiding the ad hominem. I learned a bit and had my views challenged, and perhaps modified them as a result, so already I know it's been worthwhile to spend some time here.
Thanks to Mr. Downey for posing the question the other day, 'Why doesn't anyone comment here anymore?' =)
And on that way . . .
. . . you seem to have helped spark some good discussions, Sudo. Thanks to you for participating!
And please, just call me Jim.
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read *or listen to* my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
How 'bout Jimmy?
Or Jimbo? Jamey? Jack?
Rob Miles
--
There are only 10 types of people in the world;
those who understand binary and those who don't.
Only my family . . .
. . . gets away with calling me Jamie.
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read *or listen to* my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
Ray J. Johnson
"...but you doesn't hafta call me Johnson."
Heheh... "Jaime". I got called "B" my whole life. So much so that I thought Bea Arthur and I had the same first name when I was a kid and asked my mom why she gave me a girl's name.
Life-altering decisions by teens
Teen marriage, gender reassignment surgery, signing up for any long-term obligations... they're ALL bad ideas. teens are not necessarily irresponsible (most are not!) but are still in the process of being exposed to vast amounts of knowledge about Life, the Universe, and Everything. They are in terrible peril of making decisions without enough data, or time to think over and evaluate that data.
Polygamy is not necessarily a bad thing, but pushing girls and young women into it without giving them enough real-world experience to evaluate the decision is downright EVIL. If I believed in any sort of afterlife, I would heartily wish those who've "managed" them a few lifetimes of torment. All I can reasonably hope for, is that the young people of the cult might get enough good counseling that they might free themselves of the evil teachings. But that seems like excessive optimism.
At what point in your life
At what point in your life do you think you would ever know enough to make a decision about marrying the right person or getting a sex change? Seems like both of those are really big, no matter what your age. Most times hindsight is the only vantage point you have. Do you really think that people raised in an isolated setting like this cult would make different decisions at 17 than they would at 27? They're just fitting into their society. And honestly, its raising children in isolation like this that I find so abhorrent. They're not being raised to survive on their own and be independent - which should be the ultimate goal of any parent.
I don't really like the way the "gender reassignment surgery" has been brought up here. Its too casual.... Many things can go awry in development that can leave an individual with some physical attributes that don't match the hormones in their body. Humans are social creatures and there is a strong driving force to fit into the rest of society. We don't tolerate abnormalities. So like I said, this topic was brought up too casually without any type of setting as to why a teen would want to have a surgery performed. Interesting topic, though.
Exactly right, iheart...
the link Sudo provided didn't work (at least not for me), but I did find the article. The doctor in question states that the children who come to him are already identifying with a different gender and have been for some time, and are usually hurting themselves (cutting, etc.) After some intense counseling and psychological evaluation, if it's determined that a child should have gender-reassignment surgery, then it's recommended.
The big controversy in the article about Dr. Spack isn't so much the surgery itself, but the puberty-delaying hormones he'll use for these children. The reason he delays puberty, as far as reasonably possible, is to give the child, and all parties involved, as much time as possible to make the evaluations and the decisions before puberty.
It's definitely not something that is taken, or even considered, lightly. Sudo presented as "children can decide to have gender-assignment surgery when they want", but that's not at all what's happening. In fact, if the same amount of counseling and competent psychological evaluation was done for a child "wanting" to marry a 50-year cultist, and the determination was made that it would be in the child's best interest to allow him/her to do so, I would probably have to give it grudging support as well.
Rob Miles
--
There are only 10 types of people in the world;
those who understand binary and those who don't.
What's the problem...
with polygamy in the first place? If consenting adults want to have multiple partners, what's the problem? In some places they just call it Spring Break.
But these aren't consenting adults in this case, Sudo, they're kids! Well, if we'll allow kids to under go surgery to change their gender, why can't children marry adults, if that's what they want to do?
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2008/03/30/qa_with_norman_spack/
Polygamy is okay
Hey, the more the merrier. I agree; if consenting adults want multiple partners, have at it. There are issues that have to be dealt with, but no more than standard, two-partner arrangements.
But children are, by definition, not consenting adults. I don't know about the gender changing surgery (your link doesn't work for me), but I suspect there's something more involved than just a child wanting to change his/her gender. Was there maybe genetic testing showing an X/Y chromosome mismatch? Or a professional psychologist that evaluated the child and determined that the gender change would be in the child's best interest?
I hope I wasn't being overly critical this time -_-.
Rob Miles
--
There are only 10 types of people in the world;
those who understand binary and those who don't.
Heinlein's use . . .
. . . of non-standard family structures got me thinking about many of these issues when I was very young, and helped me form my opinions intellectually before getting into emotional commitments.
I tend to think that the serial monogamy that we see as a default in Western countries reflects the differences between societal conventions and evolutionary inclinations, with a big helping of "we live a whole lot longer now than early humans did" thrown in for good measure. It is rare to see a marriage last more than ten or fifteen years these days, and I think that makes a lot of sense - when most humans lived until 30 or so, it would make sense that pair-bonding would be a good strategy to raising and protecting children into early adulthood. That would mean a "marriage" of about the length I mention above.
But we live a lot longer now, and people grow and change throughout their lives. So it is unsurprising to me that divorce is common (something like half of all marriages end in divorce) as a way of dealing with these changes. Some people find a way to grow in tandem with their partner, and some find ways of allowing a certain freedom of definition for each partner within the structure of an ostensibly conventional marriage (some, of course, do both). Different cultures have found different strategies to accommodate these stresses - some allow for polygamy of the 'conventional' sort (think the Mormon or Islamic variety), some make divorce easy, some de-emphasize marriage itself, some 'look the other way' when one or the other partner in a marriage cheats or has a formal concubine system.
A fairly recent development in all of this has come to be known as polyamory - defining relationships as being more open and less "possessive". There are some fairly well-known practices and practitioners, such as Penn Jillette. This attitude pretty well covers most of Heinlein's alternative marriage structures and can work for some people, though it would understandably require a different sort of approach and mindset than what is commonly considered about marriage/love/relationships. In an homage to Heinlein I had originally used alternative family structures as the "norm" in my SF novel set about 50 years from now (a survival-strategy response to environmental conditions), but early readers of the book got too hung up on that so I changed it. Perhaps if/when I am an established author I can get away with it, as RAH did.
Children? I dunno - don't have any, by choice. Not an issue for me, in several senses of the term.
Jim Downey
(I have explained somewhat further how this relates to my book over on my blog.)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read *or listen to* my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
The point is
Yup. Polygamy is OK in my book...if it's the reasoned decision between consenting adults.
The musical "Paint Your Wagon" is a good primer.
Paint Your Wagon
Ha! Ben Rumson and Partner and their wife! Man, I loved that movie. If I could have a mustache and side-whiskers like Ben Rumson, I'd die happy.
What's heaviest-1# gold dust or 1# gold nugget?
Where am I goin'?
I don't know.
When will I get there?
I ain't certain.
All that I know is I am on my way!
or maybe
Yesterday I met a man
Who asked me how to clean a pan.
When I bent over, Lordy! did he run!
Given that I'm not always certain what constitutes the best course in any relationship, I am a bit uneasy discussing what may be proper for others. While I seem to thrive best under certain terms I observe others thriving under terms that would make me uncomfortable. That they and I are thriving indicates that both approaches are valid for those involved.
But still, fourteen-year-old girls betrothed to their uncles? And their brothers invited to leave? I'd rather the children grew up singularly and decided for themselves. Informed decisions seem to have something going for them that uninformed decisions do not.
And cloaking it all in the too familiar guise of "it's the will of the creator of everything so then it's OK" just smacks of something that's been dead too long to eat. Amazing the lengths that some will go to to get what they could have be lesser subterfuge.
Sorry
I'm sorry the link didn't work. It does mention that these children are seen by psychiatrists and undergo counseling, but (call me a cynic) I don't think it would be hard to find a psychiatrist (or several) who are in favor of such and would push for it out of their own personal or political agendas.
Still, it seems a bit hypocritical to say children are smart enough to realize they were born with the wrong gender (!!) and say they aren't smart enough to choose who they will marry.
It doesn't necessarily follow that either of these situations occur as simply as I've laid them out, but logically speaking one asserts that children of (insert appropriate age here) years are old enough to decide one of these issues for themselves, they should be able to decide the other - and many others.
They aren't deciding for themselves
The point is that these children aren't old enough to decide FOR THEMSELVES to get genderedneered (did I just make that word up?) They are seeing psychiatrists and getting counseling, I assume recommendations are given one way or the other, and decisions are made based on those decisions. I don't know how old the children you're talking about are, but what scant information I have now doesn't sound like 10-year-old Timmy deciding to become Tammy, and the parents saying "well, if that's what you want, dear."
If I'm wrong and that type of situation is occurring, then I'm firmly against it. But that's obviously not what is happening in most cases (again, based on the little information I have.)
Rob Miles
--
There are only 10 types of people in the world;
those who understand binary and those who don't.
Subjective
Our discussion illustrates to me how subjective these kinds of things can be. I'm more alarmed by gender re-assignment surgery for anyone under age than I am about someone of the same age being married through an arranged marriage. You can always get a divorce, although I suppose these days if you decide you liked your former gender better, you can always switch back.
I'm not saying you have any of these opinions, Rob, nor anyone else on the blog. But it seems that there is a segment of society that wants children (teens?) to have unrestricted access to abortion, unrestricted access to birth control, the freedom of choice to choose with whom they will have sex (opposite or same, or more), ut then get bent out of shape when teenage girls marry older men, or choose to wear a hijab, or accept Biblical models for marriage. It's like children and women can be free to choose whatever they want, so long as it isn't joining a fundamentalist religion or marrying some old geezer.
Me, I'm more the libertarian I guess. Do what you want as long as it doesn't interfere with my life or my rights. So that kinda puts me at odds with both the right and the left these days.
I get what you're saying
but you are not only comparing very different actions, but very different mindsets as well.
While I'm sure that there are some people who would like teens to have access to birth control and abortion(I'm one of them) and even some who would make gender reassignment available(not me)we are only talking about making these options available, hopefully without too much stigma attached. Giving teens a choice that many would deny them for entirely personal/religious reasons.
People born into a xenophobic teen-breeding cult don't get to make choices. Your comparison is ridiculous. Polygamy and early breeding aren't just "other options" to these people; it's a way of life, ingrained from birth, that includes serious consequences for those who don't go along. Oh, yeah, they can run away, leave their families forever, live on the streets and try to make something of themselves with no education, no roots, and no support from their friends and families. Or they can "choose" to do what they're told and get with the baby making. Some choice! It's good to know that "libertarian" ideals leave room for spiritual date rape and reproductive slavery for women.
Freedom of choice
Basically what you're saying is you want people to have freedom of choice as long as they choose what you think is best for them, their children, and their families.
wtf is spiritual date rape?
Spritual date rape=
Fuck grandpa here and devote your existence to raising his kids, or else leave all your belongings and friends and get out of this house...and burn in hell while you're at it! Perhaps "sexual extortion" would have been a better description.
Sudo:
"Basically what you're saying is you want people to have freedom of choice as long as they choose what you think is best for them, their children, and their families."
No, that's what you are saying, after completely ignoring my point. So I'll shorten it up and try again. The examples you brought up are voluntary choices that might be made available to teens. No external force, plenty of chances for advice, thought, and counselling. You are trying to compare a situation where society allows a greater range of choices, to a situation where a particular segment of society is allowed to abuse, neglect, and exploit their children in the name of religious freedom. The teens do not get any choice but submit or be disowned. See the difference?
Your libertarianism certainly does nothing to protect the freedoms of women or children. I guess in your libertarian utopia, it is perfectly acceptable to neglect and outcast half of your children in order to keep the other half under your thumb. And society as a whole gets to pay for your "liberty."
You may not like my argument. I am no fan of oppression in any circumstance. But you are making ridiculous comparisons to sustain a content-free
position. You show deference to the freedom of this group to play god with their children and bear zero responsibility for their rights or well-being. You think that the group has a right to breed as they see fit, but what about the rights of their children? I guess in Libertopia, a 16-year old girl can either submit to broodmare status, or be disowned and thrown out with no education or means of support, and it's just her own damn fault for thinking that she owns her own body. Nice.
One more thing
Many Somalis and other Muslim immigrants to Western countries are trying very hard to keep their culture intact. This includes various practices of which we in the West disapprove. Yet, in numerous court cases, these practices are allowed to continue because it is part of their culture. How far should we in the West allow this to go? Is a native or immigrant culture so important that government not over ride their rights or culture when it conflicts with various Western laws?
If we allow these people to retain their various cultural practices, why shouldn't the fundie Mormons be allowed to maintain their cultural practices?
Or should immigrants be forced to assimilate and conform to their host society's norms?
Scarecrow
Lots of strawmen here, perhaps on both sides. Let me see if I can do better than to create and joust with another one.
First, although I do tend to take a libertarian point of view on most issues, the point I am trying to make here by making this comparison isn't about each issue separately but whether teenagers are actually capable of making decisions such as gender reassignment surgery or marrying grandpa and bearing his children. My point is that if one thinks a teenager is smart enough to make the right decision regarding a sex change, then we must accord the other teen the right to marry grandpa. Yes, I see the point that the Mormon fundie kids were raised in an isolated environment; however, a teenager that wants gender reassignment may *also" have been indoctrinated by his/her parents to want such surgery. No one makes any decision in isolation without any outside influence, whether you're a Mormon fundie or a boy who has spent the better part of his youth attending gay pride celebrations with his two mommies deciding he wants to be a woman, too.
The point is: how much authority should / do teenagers have over their own lives? How much responsibility should they be given? Smoke at 18, drink at 21, but join the military and die for your country at 17? We think they can't make the right decisions about booze and alcohol but we think nothing of handing out free condoms and encouraging them to experiment with sex, same gender or otherwise, at the ripe old age of what, 12, 13? . What has the greater change of occurring - lung cancer, car accident, or an STD and / or unwanted pregnancy?
The second part of the argument is about government interference. I am not a big fan of government. Right now the opinion is the government is right to crack down on the Mormon fundies, because we know they're all whackos. But what happens if benevolent Uncle Sam suddenly decides that homosexuality is having a pernicious effect on society and should be banned? What if they start enforcing all those old sodomy laws, and throw people in jail just for being gay? Okay, the argument is that you're born gay but religion is a choice. Well, would you rather the government throw witches in jail for dancing naked in the moonlight? Should pagans have their children taken away from them because they practice magic? What about Santeria practitioners who cut the head off chickens and read the entrails? Should their children be taken away from them?
I suppose one might make the argument that ALL children should be taken away from ALL religious people. If that's the case, I don't have a rebuttal. See you in the ovens.
The libertarian view . . .
Well, it seems to me that the libertarian POV on this matter is that while adults have the right to decide for themselves what is in their best interest, that the State has an obligation to protect the "property interests" of children's 'adult selves'.
Let me explain, if anyone finds that concept unclear. One of the operative functions of government (actually, just about the only one I can think of...) in a true "Libertarian" view is to protect property rights - that is, to not allow the use of force to negate someone's right to do with their 'property' (including their own body) as they see fit.
It's simple to see how this applies to adults. But if you open up your thinking some, it is also simple to see how this applies to the adult version of someone who is still a child - that is, the state has an obligation to protect the future adult rights of a child. In short, children are to be handled in a manner which is neutral as to allowing them to make decisions pertaining to their own bodies once they reach adulthood.
Given the additional information about the specifics of the gender reassignment noted by wantobe, it seems like some pretty stringent standards are being applied in these cases, which do in fact take into consideration the "adult rights" of these minor children. The same cannot be said about those minor children who are married off and forced to have children themselves in the FLDS compound in Texas.
Now, yes, you do have to be very careful as to how terms are defined - and allowing any government to be using religion-based definitions is decidedly dicey. So I would share your concern about the motivations of any government in acting this way.
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read *or listen to* my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
Thanks
for clarifying a bit.
First point: Teens' control over their own lives. I think we could do without many of the laws we have today that supposedly protect teens. I couldn't care less about teens having sex with each other, getting drunk or getting high. These seem to me to be best dealt with at home, or in the courts if a particular teen is causing other problems because of a lack of self-control.
Millions of teens prove that they are capable of making their own choices about drugs, sex, birth control and sexual orientation every day. I know I did! And there is really very little anyone can do to stop it short of steel chastity belts. And 24 hour surveillance.
As far as gender reassingnment, it is possibly a good comparison issue, in limited ways. A very personal decision concerning deep, emotional, sexual issues with long-term effects. I personally do not approve of teen gender reassignment. It is a huge decision with many possible negative outcomes, and little is sacrificed by waiting a few years. I feel the same about underage marriage. It seems to me that it is all too easy to lock young people into a bad decision(even with the best intentions) when the stakes are that high.
But all that said, teens have very little direct control over their lives. The legal responsibility lies with the parents until some magical age limit is reached. If you have a better solution, I'd be glad to hear it.
And it is still Apples and Ocelots to me. All of these examples are still off the mark, because the kids in this cult HAD NO REAL CHOICE. Their only choice was to submit to illegal, binding conditions or be abandoned(also illegal.) More choices is never equal to no choices, no matter how the issues may compare morally. Even the sensitive issue of gender reassignment is a choice. There may be a cult of cloned lesbian mothers encouraging their sons to get their weenies cut off, but I certainly haven't heard of it. Nor have I ever heard of anyone defending such a notion. Nor have I ever heard of lesbians encouraging gender reassignment as an everyday solution for confused teens. I have heard of lesbians showing acceptance of those who feel the need to undergo such surgery, and that's about it. It just doesn't compare to an isolated cult that offers no options and disregards the law. Not even close.
As far as government intrusion:
I have many libertarian tendencies myself. I know that there are areas of my life that would be a lot more smooth if lawmakers would just butt out. But this cult was breaking well established laws. We have decided as a society that child abandonment is not O.K. We have decided that statutory rape is not O.K. If they want to change the laws they are welcome to try.
I think that anyone over 16 should be able to drink and smoke weed. But if I spread this joyous gospel, I can get ten or twenty years in prison. Why should these yahoos get a free pass with the God card? They can believe anything they like. They could still brainwash their children like all religions, and marry them off on their 18th birthday. But they decided to flout laws that apply to everyone else. Your slippery slope is a lot more level than you perceive it.
By the way: Gays and witches are just starting to experience life as full citizens under the law. Even in liberal western society, this has taken hundreds of years of suffering, legal battles, and activism. If the best these cults can do is go and hide in the desert and inbreed, they will never be understood or accepted.
More in agreement..
than disagreement, I think. I enjoy a good debate but I don't care to continue chopping away at the same dead horse when some points are in agreement, and others aren't. Many of the things that you mentioned I am actually in agreement with, for example: weed, sex, drinking.. all the good sins, anyway. I'm still baffled why drinking booze is legal but smoking weed is not (yes, I know, the drug war is a multi-billion dollar industry, yada yada but I'm talking about the logical differences.) After all, who smokes a joint and then decides they feel like kicking somebody's ass?
My own personal opinion: I disagree with both what was occurring at the fundie compound, at least from what little I know about it, and with gender reassignment for teenagers. I admit from my perspective, gender reassignment altogether seems a little out there, but my libertarian streak says, hey, if you're an adult and want to have your penis removed, go for it! (But then we could argue about who pays for the surgery in a social vs capitalist system of medicine...)
The pretext to get into the compound is another matter, as it looks like the woman who called in the anonymous complaint lied about her identity and what she supposedly 'witnessed' in the compound. I'm actually going to reserve judgment (despite what I said earlier) about what really went on in there til more information is available.
When I engage in a debate like this I try to draw attention to and compare different situations that in most cases should be viewed similarly, if the underlying principles seem similar enough to be considered logically, even if my own personal view is contra to the views I espouse in the conversation.
By the way, your point about witches and other pagans was exactly the point I was trying to make. The slope I am on may be more level than I perceive it to be, as you say, but it is certainly coated with the slickest of ice.
These guys.
These guys:
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read *or listen to* my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
Ah, geez..
I should have known someone would find at least ONE example to refute my tongue-in-cheek comment! :P
Santeria
I called the White House to check on the official view of those Santeria practitioners who cut the heads off chickens, and to see whether there were any plans to take away their children.
The Director of White House Intelligence (who works at a very small desk in the basement and shares space with two push brooms, a mop bucket and a floor buffer) assured me that there are no plans to remove the children of Santeria practitioners.
However, there is an operation underway to take away their chickens.
Santeria
Hank,
Can you explain to me what use would taking away their children serve? Why call up the White House and bother them with such nonsense? Why not call them up and ask about police brutality, or perhaps the bigger pressing issue of illegal immigration in America? I just think that if you can contact the Director of the White House directly, why not present him with real issues?
Also, Santeria practitioners aren't the only ones who practice sacrificial ceremonies. Look into the kosher slaying of the Ascetic Jewish people.
Um ...
Russo, hang around long enough and you'll discover that a great deal of what I say is meant as a joke.
When I was a kid, it was all that kept me from climbing to the top of the public park sliding board with a water gun and shooting every mime that walked by.
Chickens > children
Good one, Hank, and more true than satire I suppose.
Do what you want ...
I feel pretty much the same way. The one glitch in the idea is that I'd be much happier to let fundamentalists believe whatever they wanted if only they wouldn't vote (or buy things, or have children, or ...). As it is, every time they do those things and inject their faulty-fantasy thinking into the process, they're impacting my life, and the lives of others equally undeserving of impact.
For instance: George W. Bush. Two wars, world dislike, a missing American city, a destroyed economy, a virtual police state, a dying world and gas up to about $4 a gallon later, it turns out the fundies weren't very good at picking presidents.
Hitching wagons
I certainly agree Bush has made a mess of things, although I'm not sure how much of his stupidity I'd lay at the feet of his religion. Stupid is as stupid does, sayeth the Prophet Gump (pbuh).
That's quite a list of things Bush is being held responsible for. Some yes, but a dying world? Do you say that because he didn't sign the Kyoto Treaty?
And I'm not hitching my wagon to the Obama-Hillary-McCain train, either. They may not have the support of the Christian Right (tm) but I don't think they will do much better.
Blaming Bush
In a paraphrase of Arthur C. Clarke's "Sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" that came to my attention during the Katrina debacle:
"Sufficiently advanced neglect is indistinguishable from malice."
To give you a metaphor for thinking about Bush, suppose your kid needed insulin and you just couldn't be bothered to pick it up at the drugstore and he fell into a coma and had to be hospitalized. You'd be guilty of a blameworthy level of neglect in the eyes of everybody who knew the story. You'd face arrest and prosecution, and they'd certainly take the kid out of your care. (On the other hand, they'd do nothing to your neighbor, who didn't know it was happening, and even if he had, had no authority or responsibility for the kid.)
Bush DID lots of stuff for which he deserves to be blamed. But he also FAILED TO DO plenty of things, and some of those are acts are every bit as malignant as the things he did.
Sitting on your dumb ass and smirking smugly for 8 years, doing nothing to make things better (speaking of climate and every other environmental issue I can think of), and lots to make things worse, yeah, he's helped wreck the earth.
He wasn't that non-responsible neighbor. He was the guy in charge, the guy with the power to make a difference, and he did nothing and worse than nothing. I certainly don't count all those lies about climate, and all the phony rhetoric about how we were "still studying" it, as peccadilloes.
The man's a monster. In just so many ways.
As to Obama & Co, I tend to question their intelligence just from the fact that they'll face the cleanup of the Bush frat party, AND a ceaseless wave of attacks from the right-wing monsters in the media (see below). But then, somebody's got to do the cleanup.
Rush Limbaugh just a day or so ago actually encouraged rioting in Denver during the Democratic Convention, to give the Democrats a black eye. When people like Limbaugh can say such things on the air and get away with it, we've lost touch with goodness itself. (The uproar over Janet Jackson's tit was a thousand times worse.) I'd like to see an Attorney General or an FCC that would take him off the air instantly for saying what he did, fine him and his network about $50 million, and prosecute him.
Limbaugh's tits
You made several good points, Hank, and wittily too, which is always a plus.
I'm one of those people who think global warming is, well.. b.s. I'm not sure what Bush and the Army Corps of Engineers and NASA and the Weather Channel should have been doing about New Orleans and the weather before Katrina hit, either. Nor should Nagin and Co. be absolved for the fiasco that was the aftermath of Katrina. The whole affair just proves to me how inept the government is, on all levels. The difference between you and I perhaps is that you feel Someone Other Than Bush might have done things differently and somehow made it all better, whereas I think they're all equally incompetent. I'm not defending him (at least I don't think so), I just think sometimes we expect too much from the government altogether.
Our conversation actually reminds me of those that I have with my dad, who after supporting Ron Paul has switched over to Obama (don't ask me how, because they are poles apart in ideology, except for the war in Iraq.) Anyway, if I criticize Obama or the Democrats for anything, he returns five paragraphs of negative information about Bush. And I say, 'You're right!' Most people assume that to dislike one is to support the other. I don't like any of them at all. It's not an either / or proposition for me. And I don't think think any of them are 'better' than the rest, or the 'lesser of evils.' They're just incompetent at different things. :D
I think the uproar over Janet Jackson's tit was overblown, and I think that Limbaugh should not be taken off the air, either. I'd like to hear what he said myself. I know that he has asked Republicans to crossover vote for Hillary to help keep the Democratic election process in an uproar as long as possible, and people can debate whether that is ethical or not. I don't like him, Sean Hannity, or Bill O'Reilly, either, but I wouldn't advocate taking them off the air. I don't care for Ted Turner and his politics either, but I don't ask them to shut down CNN. The more freedom, the better, generally speaking.
Once we get the government to start shutting people down, you always have to wonder, 'Who's next?'
Bingo
Bingo.
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read *or listen to* my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
I don't think that what
I don't think that what Limbaugh says should be considered a crime. But it is funny that somebody like Howard Stern can be fined up the ass and forced off of public airwaves for being naughty, while Limbaugh can damn near cross the line into incitement and barely a wisp of outrage materializes.
Polygamy
I haven't completely made up my mind about polygamy between consenting adults myself. However ...
I keep feeling there's something unclean about the people I've been seeing on TV. I don't think it's just a matter of a difference of religion or culture either. That business about the children changing their names at will, is it because they don't know what their real names are? The business about not knowing who their real parents are, something about that bugs me too.
A man with 30 children, I don't know how a majority of those kids can escape feeling their father is cold and distant. There just isn't enough fatherly love to go around to that many kids, and I'm pretty sure that's unhealthy as hell.
And I can't detail the reasons right this second, but I have this strong feeling that teaching kids to be afraid of strangers, of the entire outside world, is probably a serious form of child abuse.
I suspect that if a bevy of psychologists looks into all this, ignoring the possibility of accusations of religious persecution, they'll find that these kids and these women have a number of deep psychological problems. The men are probably textbook cases too.
I begin to wonder, judging from the few examples of polygamy I've read about, if the basic model isn't flawed in some way, like communism, and just can't work all that well.
Well reasoned
Yes, I agree, the way you spell it out makes the fundie Mormon cult seem unhealthy. Doesn't really speak to polygamy in all cases or situations though. What are your thoughts on people having multiple partners without commitment, with or without children involved?
I'm curious also, what do you think about gender assignment surgery for pre-teens or teenage kids?
Answers
Multiple partners without commitment: Is that a trick question? I'm a human male; we evolved to think multiple partners was a good idea. :)
But then again, kids should have permanent parents. I actually am well in favor of abortion for this reason, among others. People here and elsewhere probably get tired of me spouting about what I call my "Wise Old Sayings I Just Made Up," but one of them is:
"Every child wanted, every child loved — whatever it takes: Sex education, family planning, contraceptives, condoms, adoption and abortion. Whatever it takes."
To me, to force an unwanted child into a world that will cheat them of the love and support they deserve is a crime MUCH greater than abortion. (I speak with a small amount of experience.) And it's all very well to say "Well, you don't know! They might be very happy." But any woman not CERTAIN she wants a kid should have every option on the table to not do it.
This is not exactly polygamy, but the same thought applies. Kids deserve lots and lots of one-on-one with their parents. As I've never heard of polygamists who believed in having just two kids and then stopping, I suspect polygamy acts counter to this assertion.
Gender reassignment surgery for pre-teens or teens: I'm pretty much against it.
Reading a recent article about laser eye surgery, and the number of people who have severe reactions, after a decade or so of happy-happy stories about how great it is, was just another data point in the conclusion that we often don't get the whole scoop in these stories. Surgery isn't something you do unless the whatever-you-have is extremely threatening. There are always side effects, and sometimes they can be immense and permanent.
I had a small surgery on the back of my scalp about 6 years ago, and I still have small-but-noticeable effects that slightly lower the quality of my life. Major surgery? Damn, unless I'm going to die without it, I'm going to stay the hell away.
I have my suspicions that we never hear just how wrong "gender reassignment surgery" can go -- what little I've read on it makes it sound to me like some very elaborate, very expensive mutilation, something cooked up by doctors working way out past the edge of good medicine.
If we had some way to just painlessly plug in new parts here and there, I might feel differently about it, but what we have is painful, intrusive, dangerous, uncertain cutting-stabbing-snipping-bleeding SURGERY. Whatever the condition of the mind, if the body is otherwise healthy, I'm not convinced still-experimental surgical alterations are ever a good answer.
Finally, I used to be a teen, and I still have quite a bit of it in me. I know what a basket case I was as a teen, and I know I'm so much more aware, educated and wise than I used to be.
I'm very short for a man - 5'3". If I had had the serious choice offered to me at the age of 17 to surgically break and arduously lengthen the bones in my arms and legs to make me taller, I was almost certainly unqualified to make the decision, however much I might have thought I was at the time, and however loudly I might have demanded it.
I feel for the kids faced with a perceived need for such alterations, but I worry that, however much they want it, however informed they supposedly are, they're being duped into something that will never give them what they really desire, something that will permanently impact their physical health, and something that there's no way to undo.
Why don't you ?
I'm sure you do get it.
People are taught to believe in such things as the Red Sea being parted. Their parents believe in it, their friends believe in it, so of course it doesn't sound outlandish at all.
But when they're faced with an all-new information, then they are ready to criticize it and paint it as crazy.
Well, yeah.
Well, yeah, I do. That was a bit of rhetorical flourish. At least on some level I understand what is happening.
But I gotta admit, the cognitive dissonance it takes to write something like that and then go on to rip another religion just seems excessive.
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read *or listen to* my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
Post new comment