Thursday, 10 January 2008

Today's Battle - Yet again

Another day, another occasion when I'm called a freak (that's fair enough), a deviant, a pervert, accused of having a sinful heart, the usual. This time over at California Catholic Daily, where the Daughters of Charity are acting most uncharitably.

I've never been accused of having a "one-track mind... for evil!" before though.


mythusmage said...

You, one track? I swear, of all my minions you have to be the most scatterbrained. If you don't count the MSM, and that's not an individual.

Woman, if you could just focus on one nefarious scheme or evil plot we'd be a lot further on. But you have to be a flibbertigibbet.

(I wonder if Crowley had people like Zoe? (Wait a minute, I made sure Crowley had people like Zoe, and worse. I had fun screwing over that ass.))

Satan (as channeled by Alan)

Lloyd Flack said...

Perhaps you should point out to them that there was a very high rate of transsexuality among those exposed before birth to a certain chemical. I would say that this is near certain proof than transsexuality has an objective physical basis and is not just upbringing or solely in the mind of those with the condition.

Anonymous said...

No religious person wants to be told the observable facts! That might cause them to question their religion! Oh horror!

Laserlight said...

Anonymous, you're stereotyping every bit as badly as the people you're railing against. Anybody will tend to believe arguments that support the position they already hold, and discount arguments that undermine their position. That holds whether the topic is religion, politics, global warming, new views of physics, whether your husband is cheating on you, or whether transsex is a physical or psychological problem.
If that weren't the case, Zoe wouldn't have NEARLY the problems convincing people that she's been having. She is much to be commended for continuing to argue patiently instead of slinging out ad hominem attacks and washing her hands of psychologists, civil servants, physicians, members of various religions, and people in general.

Zoe Brain said...

Anonymous, you are correct about some religious people. Some. But you've obviously never met a Jesuit. And it must get intensely frustrating for the many religious people I know who are questing for truth in as rational a manner as they know how to be lumped in with the know-nothings. It is unjust to them.

One of the few things I don't like about some (not all) of the Australian Sceptics is their derision of people who believe in "invisible friends".

None of us like to be told facts that undermine cherished beliefs. For example, the size of the samples in the Gooren papers I quote is far too small for comfort. OK, best we have, and covers all TS people who died in the population group under study, but still too small. My only arguments for relying on it is that I call for more studies to be done, there is zero evidence against the findings, and that it's the best data we have.

Laserlight is exactly right, and we should be careful about motes in others eyes while ignoring the beams in our own. Still, when there is goodwill and charity amongst those disputing, we can ameliorate each others' failings.

Lloyd Flack said...

I'd count this as a partial success. You've got them to seriously consider the possibility that transsexuality might have a physical basis. I think some have nearly conceeded this.

Unfortunately the response of some is to see a brain-body mismatch as something that should be stoically endured. Most of this is that the distress that this causes is not real to them. Not surprising, this places a big demand on imaginative empathty. A bit of it however seems to be the suffering is good for the soul streak in the Catholic Church. This is rather less excusable.