Not signed in (Sign In)
  1.  (1552.41)
    But I don't want to make babies! I'm really not sure in 2008, how natural making babies really is anymore. There's a lot of tubes, negotiations, and special classes involved these days. Plus we've had feminism come along since then, and so not all women want to be baby-makers. Nor should they have to want to.

    Then don't.

    As for it being natural, are you speaking to us from "teh futures"? The "tubes" and all that are more problems of those who can afford the expense of artificial insemination, and as for special classes and negotiations, I'm just not following. The issue for most is family planning and prenatal care. The perpetuation of the species is pretty hard-wired, and rightfully so. And again, it's every woman's right to choose not to and anyone who thinks a woman ill for doing so is just silliness.

    I'm critical of Calpernia because she's assumed this role in the transgender community in much the same way, as I said above, Tila Tequila has for bisexuals, as a means to her own ends. That's shady to me at best. Someone like Pauline Park isn't trying to land a music contract or television show out of her activism. It does bother me that she gets called a "leading voice" for transgendered people when she's simply a performer on that make. All power to her in her career, but that "I'm the vessel" stuff sounded awful coming from Halle Berry, as it would anyone else.

    As for criticizing someone from a marginalized community, that's just bad logic all around. By that thinking you can't critique Al Sharpton's nonsense because of his race or find fault in Hillary Clinton because she's a woman. As long as that criticism isn't simply an attack on them for being a woman, African-American or Transgendered, it's simply fair play.
  2.  (1552.42)
    As for it being natural, are you speaking to us from "teh futures"? The "tubes" and all that are more problems of those who can afford the expense of artificial insemination, and as for special classes and negotiations, I'm just not following. The issue for most is family planning and prenatal care. The perpetuation of the species is pretty hard-wired, and rightfully so. And again, it's every woman's right to choose not to and anyone who thinks a woman ill for doing so is just silliness.

    It's obviously not hard wired if there are women who don't want to breed. I'm talking to you from a world that has had the feminist revolution, where women's sole function in life isn't just to squat out little biological turd monkeys for the amusement of men. The whole "natural" thing seems a little too close to a woman's place is in the kitchen to me, in 2008. It's great if you want to have kids. More power to you. But you're not engaging in some kind of higher calling than people who don't have kids.

    Having children instead of adopting in 2008, is as dumb as eating meat.

    I'm critical of Calpernia because she's assumed this role in the transgender community in much the same way, as I said above, Tila Tequila has for bisexuals, as a means to her own ends. That's shady to me at best. Someone like Pauline Park isn't trying to land a music contract or television show out of her activism. It does bother me that she gets called a "leading voice" for transgendered people when she's simply a performer on that make. All power to her in her career, but that "I'm the vessel" stuff sounded awful coming from Halle Berry, as it would anyone else.



    But she is a leading voice in the transgender community. I don't understand your criticism. Saying what she does is the same thing as Tela Tequila is intellectually dishonest. Tela's where she is, not so much as a bisexual activist, as a myspace marketing ploy. Calpernia has been paying her dues raising awareness for the transgender community for quite some time.

    And if nothing else she has a place one of the communities most important narratives.

    As for criticizing someone from a marginalized community, that's just bad logic all around. By that thinking you can't critique Al Sharpton's nonsense because of his race or find fault in Hillary Clinton because she's a woman. As long as that criticism isn't simply an attack on them for being a woman, African-American or Transgendered, it's simply fair play.

    But the trans group is smaller than both of those groups, and their representation in the cultural consciousness is far less. So when you take aim at someone like Calpernia, who is probably the most visible transperson in the national consciousness--you're attacking basically the only face most of the public is shown, and giving overt reasons that someone who doesn't like her because of her transness can just come in and adopt from you and use it to further trans-oppression. I just think you have to be careful, and pick your battles. Taking down Calpernia Adams won't help anything in the trans-community.
    •  
      CommentAuthororwellseyes
    • CommentTimeMar 28th 2008 edited
     (1552.43)
    It's obviously not hard wired if there are women who don't want to breed.

    I'm sorry, but you're simply wrong on that. Human beings want more human beings. Are there people (male and female) who have other desires? Of course, and thankfully society has and is evolving to accept that as perfectly acceptable, if not in some over-populated spaced, preferrably. But you're arguing against evolution here, not for feminism.

    I'm talking to you from a world that has had the feminist revolution, where women's sole function in life isn't just to squat out little biological turd monkeys for the amusement of men.
    The whole "natural" thing seems a little too close to a woman's place is in the kitchen to me, in 2008. It's great if you want to have kids. More power to you. But you're not engaging in some kind of higher calling than people who don't have kids.


    All right now, calm down here. My admission that the notion of having a child with my partner tickles some fancy or my statement that seeing a Transgendered person taken with the notion of having a baby isn't some reinforcing of the patriarchal past or repudiation of all things feminist and woman. Feminism, and all human rights including for transgendered persons, is about choice and that acceptance of that choice. As long as I'm not forcing my choice on you or you on me that's a fine thing. If I was out there going all "Handmaid's Tale" on the fertile women of America then you might have a point.

    In sum, Children are natural, having them is wonderful, not having them just as wonderful. In fact, some people not having children is a gift to the world.


    Having children instead of adopting in 2008, is as dumb as eating meat.

    Oh, well. Clearly you're mad.
    •  
      CommentAuthorZ
    • CommentTimeMar 28th 2008
     (1552.44)
    @orwellseyes

    I'm glad you said it, and more eloquently than I could have. I whole-heartedly agree with you on this one.

    - Z
  3.  (1552.45)
    orwelleyes:
    I think when you say that something is natural, you're implying that it's opposite is not natural. And to me I don't really view that as being okay with both. I don't think I'm really arguing against evolution either. Because we live in a time when breeding more life isn't integral to the survival of the species. In fact, the opposite is true in many places of the world, especially given what we're doing to our resources.

    Having a child in 2008 is a selfish act that will probably do more harm to the world than it will good. It's fine if that's what you want to do. But you can't take the moral high ground anymore that what you're doing is better for the species. The days of thinking less of a woman for not having children are fast approaching their end. I know that's not what you're overtly saying. But your justification and view on this topic, does feed into that same meme.

    Oh and sorry if my tone is putting you on the defensive some. I don't know enough about you to dislike you. I'm more trying to articulate a viewpoint that's opposite to the one you presented in many ways. It's nothing personal. And I'm not mad. I just wanted to share some of the thoughts I had on the topic. So I hope I haven't offended you that much.
  4.  (1552.46)
    Mercurialblonde:

    Haven't offended me at all, and while I was being flip I wasn't trying to be rude.

    I think you're just approaching this topic with a set of idealogies that aren't necessarily germane. Feminism, vegetarianism, population solutions, greening economic systems, are all great and wonderful systems, and they color any given issue, but sometimes trying to see every angle doesn't let us see one. It's what drove me screaming away from academia, too many agendas, not enough issues.

    Your hearts in the right place. I just love a good steak now and again. :)
  5.  (1552.47)
    @mercurialblonde

    You seem to assume that because orsonwellseyes says the desire to produce offspring in men and women is natural, that he's saying the desire NOT to have children is unnatural. He isn't writing points of law, not every aspect needs to be covered. From everything else he says I would say he thinks ANY decision is natural, as long as it's your own.Maybe a better word to use would be 'instinctual'?
  6.  (1552.48)
    orwellseyes:
    I had a steak two days ago. I'm not vegetarian. It's not like I campaign against people having children either. It's just that as a woman who doesn't want to have kids, I get a little irritated sometimes and paranoid about the notion that I should raise them or have anything to do with them. And I have friends who are the same way. It's like for some people you haven't accomplished anything as a woman if you haven't had a kid.

    And you head it a lot, "oh it's natural, la la la, you'll want one soon, biological clock, yada yada yada". It's so lame. So I think I was mainly wanting to express some of those frustrations, because as much as I love this story, and find it really romantic, I do feel like they should have just adopted. I mean...geez. But whatever, it was their call.