I find it unacceptable that you have put our correspondence online without mantioning that to me much less asking my permission. I do not give such permission for this or any further correspondence, and if that's not okay with you, I will regretfully have to stop writing you.
On 23/12/2009 10:35 PM, Ronald Gold wrote:
Was thinking that now that I'm agreeable to being online, perhaps you should also include the reply I wrote to your canine intercourse remark, etc. Why spare them a bit of vitriol?
OK, here it is....
I haven't had much sleep lately because my mind keeps whirling about with all the things I want to ask you and say to you about our correspondence. Where to begin? I kept asking myself. Perhaps mistakenly, I've decided to begin with a couple of things I'm really pissed off about, since this emotional state has colored my thinking which, like you, I like to think is rational.
First, I find it unacceptable that you have put our correspondence online without mantioning that to me much less asking my permission. I do not give such permission for this or any further correspondence, and if that's not okay with you, I will regretfully have to stop writing you. When I have reached some conclusions about what, if anything, I would change about my original post, I will say so (though I doubt if I now have a forum for my thoughts) and I might even decide it would be worthwhile to discuss how I got to that point, but while I'm getting there I prefer talking to a sympathetic ear, which I thought yours was, not into a loudspeaker!
So I have committed "canine intercourse" (were you one of those who objected to my use of the word "pecker"? --- a misguided attempt to add a note of levity, by the way) and my views have caused incalculable "real damage" you cannot bring yourself to specify. Best I can do is state succinctly my current view on that: My suggestion that the concept of transgender is a form of sex-role stereotyping (however much I might wish to modify that view in light of your info on neuroanatomy) is TOTALLY unlikely to inspire hatred and hostility toward anybody, and has NEVER been used by those who would like to kill anybody. I note that you have not included anything approaching that in your discussion of rationales for hate, and that my thoughts on the subject seem to have been the farthest thing from mind of the McDonald's manager who called a young applicant a "faggot." What the use of that word means to me is that hatred is directed at those who don't conform to the sex-role stereotypes that most people try to force themselves into. I can see that calling people mutilated and deluded whose self-image depends on thinking otherwise would be profoundly upsetting to them, but that's not at all what I was trying to do. Perhaps there was a way of saying what I had to say without upsetting anybody, and perhaps I should have tried hard to do that, which I admit I didn't. Right now, I can't think of any way I could have avoided offense. But "real damage'?
There are a great many other things I want to say and ask you about related to your most recent emails, but now I intend to wash the dishes and make the bed, so all will be ready for Ali when he returns from the latest in a million weddings we've been invited to since I got back here. He always goes because he likes the food and the chat, and I always don't because being among hundreds of people I don't know and can't talk to because of the language barrier, is not my idea of fun. I may return to this today, or start up again tomorrow.
I've discovered that I have on this computer a copy of Polarity: the Psychology of Paul Rosenfels, the as-yet-unpublished manuscript which outlines the theoretical base for virtually everything I have written. I've learned it's not as easy to comprehend as I hoped it would be, but I could email it to you if you're intrested. But I notice you've yet to comment on the two attachments I sent you recently, so perhaps not.
My comment on his request for publication:
By the way, you're an evil, evil man suggesting I include your diatribe. But then, I must be an evil, evil woman, as that tickles my funnybone - so if you're absolutely sure... it would add a certain air of completeness. Please confirm this though, I really wouldn't want to make another mistake like last time.(He did in a separate e-mail)
I feel terrible that I was so rude. I really don't want to stage a repeat performance, you know? Not just for your sake, but mine. I try to do the right thing, and when I screw up, as here, well, I don't feel very good about it.
I don't think you do vitriol very well though. Anger, yes, that you have down pat. Fury too. But you lack the spite and malice needed for proper vitriol.
Posts in this series: