Again, nuance, context. These things matter. If I kill someone out of mercy, it is different to killing them because they are "not fit to live". Yes, the outcome is the same, but intention matters. Even the legal system recognises this.

He isn't talking about an isolated incident. Dawkins is supporting infanticide in cases where babies have incurable diseases. So, if there was a general policy in society of killing off babies who would die early, according to his own words he would be in favor of that. No matter how you want to dress it up, it's still social darwinism.

Besides in the context (there's that word again) of this video, he is talking about children that will die before they reach puberty anyway, so a true social darwinist would just let nature take it's course.

No, a true social darwinist would kill them off so they wouldn't consume unnecessary resources.

It's great that these kids were saved (by science, I might add). Do you really think that Dawkins is implying that they should be killed with no attempt to cure them? You're really grasping at straws here.

No, I am saying that they would have both would have been selected for death under dawkins morality, even though they would have both lived given the circumstances. I am showing the idea of infanticide being morally permissible is actually morally repugnant, and that many children would die who would have otherwise survived.

>> ^ChaosEngine:
>> ^shinyblurry:
What,is implying that they should be killed with no attempt to cure them? You're really grasping at straws here.

>> ^shinyblurry:

What, because it's a "compassionate" murder of infants, it isn't social darwinism? Of course it is. He is still saying that they should be selected to die because of their infirmities, regardless of what the stated motivation is.

Again, nuance, context. These things matter. If I kill someone out of mercy, it is different to killing them because they are "not fit to live". Yes, the outcome is the same, but intention matters. Even the legal system recognises this.

Besides in the context (there's that word again) of this video, he is talking about children that will die before they reach puberty anyway, so a true social darwinist would just let nature take it's course.

>> ^shinyblurry:

It's a good thing these two don't have Dawkins as their Father:
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Miracle+drug+
saves+Aussie+baby+in+world+first%3A+doctors-a01612048752
http://www.caringbridge.org/visit/ellerycase

It's great that these kids were saved (by science, I might add). Do you really think that Dawkins is implying that they should be killed with no attempt to cure them? You're really grasping at straws here.

>> ^Sagemind:

Out Takes:



Also audio behind the scenes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47l8sK2LUIo

@MilkmanDan

Please watch the video and interview. There is no way a kid can get anywhere near hormonal treatment, let alone grs, before going through a battery of psychiatrists and doctors over a period of many, many years. Do you think a "dumbass" with mixed ideas about their identity could possibly slip through?

As for calling this "genital mutilation", @CaptainPlanet, I am frankly disgusted at your flippant use of the term. You know what would've been genital mutilation? When a young Tim Petras tried to cut off her penis out of frustration of being in the wrong body. As a strong opponent of genital mutilation (including male circumcision performed on minors), I am doubly insulted, as would surely be Kim. Calling grs "genital mutilation" is akin to calling this "facial mutilation": technically true, connotatively false.

@bmacs27

Talking about consent makes it seem the parents were the ones who pushed this on her, instead of vice-versa. I doubt that's what you meant, but I just thought I'd clarify. Like I mentioned above, gender identity isn't solely a question of sexuality, and it is defined long before puberty. Moreover, the hormonal treatment - which is reversible at any time - spanned at least four psychiatrist-followed years. I'm pretty sure if there had been the slightest inkling of a doubt during that period the shrinks would have picked up on it and vetoed the surgical procedure. Also, please notice that her grs was not "pre-pubescent": seriously, how many kids hit puberty at 16? Moreover, while the hormone treatment is reversible, male puberty is not (cf my above comments).

As for data, there surely is (too lazy to look now), showing that those who come to the idea of grs because of confused sexual identity or problems linked to abuse are kindly redirected during the long psychiatric process. I happen to know a psychiatrist who specialises in transsexualism (in CH you are required by law to see one minimum 1 year before being considered for hormonal treatment, 2 years for grs, in addition to being over 18), and she told me that cases of perceived transsexualism due to childhood abuse and/or confused sexual identity (notably repressed homosexuality) are not rare. There are instances of hormone use, namely in Brazil, for simply lucrative purposes ("dick-girl" prostitution), which I am obviously against if pressured upon the person (sadly the case sometimes).

@hpqp

What about the issue of consent? I can see the obvious advantages of earlier (pre-pubescent) reassignment. At the same time, you can't go back. It makes the question of consent really murky. For instance, you don't know that hormonal changes at puberty wouldn't alter her sexual identity. Do we have any data on the number of false alarms? We might, but there are probably sampling biases inherent in that sort of data.

I guess I don't like body modification in general, but that's just me.

@VoodooV

"One day"? You definitely didn't watch the report, nor the interview.

Gender isn't just about sexuality btw, and gender identification happens a lot earlier than puberty. When did you know you were a boy (or girl)? Only at puberty?

As for if it should be covered by state healthcare insurance: of course it should (I wouldn't be surprised if it already was in the case of Kim).

edit: who should be doing the "decision making" about someone's body, that person or that person's parents? You talk as if it were a whim to get grs, and the parents got it for their kid like they would an ear-piercing.

>> ^hpqp:

@VoodooV
Did you watch the video? She knew who she was since very early childhood. I agree that gender reassignment surgery should definitely not be done on a whim, but such was not the case here, nor is it even possible, considering all the medical and legal procedures one must go through before getting it.


What part of "very early childhood" do you not understand? You don't just accept stuff like that because a kid tells you so. They're kids, the vast majority don't know shit, especially about sexuality.

Again, I'm not saying every kid is the same, I'm just saying its extremely dangerous to make such an expensive and permanent decision just because a kid one day says they don't like their gender.

And my question went unanswered. Do we subsidize gender-reassignment surgery for poor kids who are "really sure" they're not in the right gender if it's that traumatic? If not, then tough luck, guess only rich people get to be in the right gender.

Why are we accepting at face value what these kids say about their sexuality when they're not even hitting puberty? It's ridiculous. I'm not against the surgery, I'm just against these families that apparently let the kids do the decision making.

Indeed. One of the reasons there is a much higher rate of depression (and suicide) amongst mtf than ftm transsexuals is that the treatment is administered too late, after the male hormones of puberty have irretrievably shaped a male body. The result is that, while they feel and are 100% women, they are not perceived as such by society because of the scars of masculinity: the pain of being in the wrong body becomes externalized, embodied in the perception others have of them as a "surgically rearranged male".


@Trancecoach
In the second part of the report she tells the interviewer that she would tell a potential boyfriend of her origins, and that she's not interested in dating someone who's too closed-minded to care about it.

>> ^EMPIRE:

and she's a cute girl. fortunately for her, she will be able to enjoy the body she was supposed to have been born with, still in her teen years.

I think the most interesting aspect of this are the medications involved to stave off puberty and really make her female. You'd have to have amazing parents and an amazing society to get that going without much huffing & puffing by media, the school district or what have you. I just hope she starts listening to old german bands and then starts playing some good old german space rock pop or something.

Charlie Brown's the shit! Side note Browns are my relations.
>> ^ant:

>> ^ctrlaltbleach:
promote

Dang, that was fast.

>> ^ctrlaltbleach:

promote


Dang, that was fast.

>> ^bareboards2:

Really? Gay?
I'm not sure. He dances. He isn't afraid to move his body. That doesn't make him gay.
hpqp, I think you should decide if that channel designation should stay or not.
I would love it if this guy isn't gay. Why are American men so afraid of their bodies? Dang shame.
>> ^siftbot:
Adding video to channels (<a rel="nofollow" href="http://gay.videosift.com" style="color:#FF88AA">Gay) - requested by JiggaJonson.



He does have a very camp posture and very effeminate Mannerisms , obvously before puberty (and after) its possible for someone to go from very effeminate to maculin its also possible for someone to be very effeminate and straight or masuclin and gay.

I would however not be surprised if there was a statistically significant number of males that are effeminate at youth that end up being gay or who know they are gay from a young age. ( some of my friends who are gay and that I grew up with I could tell they were likely gay or bie when they were 12 or so ( not that I really cared ) it was just noticeable in there body language )

It dose not "matter" if he is gay or not but I would say the dance is quite a camp dance and I would not be surprised if he decided he was gay when older.

The non-sexy-accent-guy's voice needs to hit puberty. Gra

Born Catholic. Began making a transition to atheism shortly after puberty.

How hard could it be? You show up and communicate information within your field of expertise. The students take it all in. Job done.

It's not that simple.

You would have a very different perspective if you ever tried teaching yourself.

If you were responsible for educating 200 - 300 students with different learning styles, different motivating factors, different attention levels, different levels of discipline, different levels of comprehension, different types of psychology, different levels of intelligence, different levels of interest, different levels of sanity, different stages of physiological development (AKA puberty), etc. you'd get it.

In addition to 'teaching', an educator also needs to be a leader, a negotiator, a salesman, a disciplinarian, a politician, an administrator, a motivator, a receptionist, an advocate, a librarian, a manager, a public relations agent, a psychologist, an entertainer, an accountant, and for some students, a parent. If you are a music teacher, you get even more hats - arranger, copyist, bus scheduler, event planner, fund raiser, critic, graphic designer, contractor etc. (Running a high school band is like running a business, complete with a board, fundraiser income, expenses, employees, audits, etc.)

The 'teaching' part is the easiest part of the job. If there weren't so many responsibilities outside of the actual 'teaching', you and chilaxe would have a point. And, I haven't even mentioned dealing with administrators and parents, which is an art in and of itself.

I know you grew up in a region of the country that does not have high educational standards (and cruel stereotypes that reinforce these low standards), so I don't doubt that you've had more than your fair share of bad teachers. If anything, I think you have first hand experience of what happens when public education is neglected and underfunded. If you get the cuts you want in education, you will be saddling future generations with the same substandard education you experienced growing up. Is that really what you want?

I grew up in middle class Southern California, with teachers that were paid fairly, schools that were well funded and parents that involved themselves in the academic lives of their children. (3 of the biggest factors in student achievement). Out of the 40+ teachers I had from K-12, I can think of two that were bad (one was a morbidly obese right wing history teacher that spent as much time praising Reagan and Capitalism as he did teaching history, the other was a self-loathing Science teacher who seemed to fear any kind of social interaction). I can think of 14 that were exceptional teachers and human beings - I'm still in touch with a few of them. The rest were competent at their jobs, if not particularly memorable.

I got good grades and received a half scholarship to a prominent west coast university (fight on). Since then I've had the luxury of being able to play music for a living (and occasionally teach or compose). Public education did me a solid.

PS: I like when you share stories from your life with me. I find it much more moving and persuasive than being called a statist idiot.