stella41b
Posts: 4258
Joined: 10/16/2007
From: SW London (UK)
Status: offline
|
FR.
Each and every single one of us here is an individual, irrespective of how they identify themselves.
When a child is born it spends the first five or so years of its life gathering information about itself, and about everything and everyone it comes into contact with. Up until the time he or she speaks and can make use of language the baby just reacts and makes a noise and hopes that someone, ideally the mother, will come and either satisfy that need. Then it forms words, its own language with which to communicate, and then it learns that it's probably best to use its own language just like everyone else.
By the time a child is six it changes, it becomes reflective, it tries to think. By the time of seven a child has normally worked out who they are, who everybody else is, what lots of things are, how it's life is going to be and what it's main objective in life is.
The thing is the child is going to grow up and get older, and it will only ever achieve what it sets out to do in life by learning and by forming relationships with other people which have some degree of success.
The thing is, that process between birth and seven kind of suggests to me that there's the presence of a soul or spirit, and even that there is such a thing as reincarnation and karma.
This is how we all live or have lived. We have all gone through these processes. We all define ourselves, we all decide how we live, and each and every one of us must decide for ourselves not just our morality and beliefs but also how we are to live in relative harmony not just among other people, but also - and perhaps most importantly - with ourselves.
How else are we going to ever hope to have a successful relationship with anyone else if we cannot or are unable to have a successful relationship with ourselves?
If I were to walk up to any man, a naturally born male, and challenge him and his own definition of himself it would be ridiculous. If I were to do the same to a woman, a naturally born woman, and express my disagreement with her definition of herself it would be unthinkable. It would be ludicrous.
And yet this is what many of the transgendered have to deal with time after time after time after time.
Just because a man has a deformed leg, for example, doesn't make him any less of a man. A woman after a hysterectomy or mastectomy is still very much a woman. The same goes for anyone who strongly feels or has been diagnosed as being born into the wrong body, or having the wrong primary or secondary physical sex characteristics.
Why focus on the deformity or the problem? Why not, just as you do with every other human being whether male or female, just focus on the person?
Is it really that difficult? Why is it so hard for some to accept someone else's definition of themselves when they themselves expect unconditional acceptance from everyone else of how they define themselves?
Edited for typos.
< Message edited by stella41b -- 10/10/2009 6:25:57 AM >
_____________________________
CM's Resident Lyricist
also Facebook
http://stella.baker.tripod.com/
50NZpoints
Q2
Simply Q
|
RE: Transsexual = Female? - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread